CRMC No. 48 of 2010 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Mr. Abhishekh Wazir, Advocate. V/s Jagjit Rai S/o Sh. Lakhpat Rai, R/o Village Domana, Tehsil Jammu. Through: None. …. Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 18.12.2024

Petitioner No.1-Lakhpat Rai is reported to have expired thereby leaving petitioner No.2 to pursue the present petition.

The respondent herein- Jagjit Rai instituted a criminal complaint against Raji Malpotra D/o Sh. Keshav Parkash and Lakhpat Rai S/o Basakhi Ram alleging commission of offences on their part under sections 499/501/505/120- A/120-B and section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by referring to an alleged letter dated 20.03.2008 said to have been addressed by the petitioner No.2 as -2- accused No.1 in the compliant to the Chairman, University Grants Commission. The petitioner no.1 as accused No.2 in the complaint was father of the complainant.

The complaint was presented before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Munsiff) Jammu which, vide an order dated 28.04.2008, came to take cognizance of the offences against the two respondents named as accused in the said complaint. The cognizance was taken for the alleged commission of offences under section 500/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

Aggrieved of cognizance taking order, the two petitioners as accused came to prefer a criminal revision before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu which resulted in its dismissal in terms of an order dated 02.09.2009 against which the two petitioners as accused being aggrieved came forward with the present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C 1939 AD.

During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner No.1, as being accused no.2 in the complaint, expired as such the complaint against him stands abated leaving only the petitioner no.2 as being accused no.1 in the case to pursue the present petition to its logical end.

Respondent–Jagjit Rai as being the complainant has been set exparte in terms of order dated 21.08.2023.

Perusal of the complaint would show that the entire edifice of the complaint built upon a purported letter dated 30.03.2008 with respect to mention about the respondent as a complainant in paragraph no.14 of the complaint pleading that he received this letter because the same was sent to him by the -3- petitioner No.1, the accused No.2 in the complaint and the said letter was widely circulated to various authorities of the institution, amongst students, teachers as well as general public at large which afforded the cause of action for the respondent as a complainant who suffered the alleged defamation.

The respondent in his complaint has not come forward with any clarification as to how come the first page of the alleged letter is attributable to petitioner no.2 when the first page of the alleged letter containing defamatory content does not bear any signature of the petitioner no.2 to attribute its authorship to her. Two leaf alleged letter dated 20.03.2008 was never addressed to the respondent and even a copy there of was not addressed to him. A letter which was purportedly meant for the Chairman, University Grants Commission UGC at no point of time was ever redirected towards the respondent for him to feel offended by its contents and to attribute its authorship to the petitioner No. 2. The person about whom the alleged letter makes mention to be in illicit relationship with the respondent has not come forward to join the respondent to contest the allegations as levelled against the said person so as to lend credence to the alleged allegations of respondent against the petitioner No.1 when by her said alleged letter she is alleged to have left the respondent allegedly defamed.

The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Munsiff) Jammu had no factual basis whatsoever in terms of the facts pleaded in the complaint and the witnesses cited in support thereof which do not even include the person about whom the alleged letter makes objectionable references qua the respondent. -4-

Therefore, the cognizance taking process at the end of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Munsiff) Jammu was vitiated at from the very inception and that continues to be so as on date as being misconceived.

Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner No. 2 is hereby quashed.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE Jammu 18.12.2024 Sunita/PS SUNITA KOUL 2024.12.20 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document