Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of complaint No. 261 dated 12.10.2012, captioned ‘Daler Singh v. Panjab Singh, under Section 500 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC) (Annexure P8), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, summoning order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P9) and proceedings emanating therefrom.
The facts, in brief, are that Panjab Singh (respondent herein) filed a private complaint, on the allegations that all the accused in connivance with each other made a complaint to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab, Chandigarh against him levelling false and baseless allegations known to the accused to be false on the premise that the complainant is in illegal possession of Panchayat land measuring 8 kanals and thereby, the complainant has violated the election rules and he has no moral right to remain as Member Panchayat. The accused filed a false affidavit in support of the allegations set up in the application. An inquiry was conducted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Talwara and the allegations levelled against the complainant were found to be false. The accused spread rumours in the village that the complainant is the encroacher upon the Panchayat land with an intention to defame the complainant in the eyes of public, friends, relatives and officials of the department.
Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners submitted an application to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab Chandigarh, for taking action against the complainant as he is in illegal possession of land belonging to the Panchayat as reflected in the jamabandis and khasra girdawaris for the years 2005 onwards. It is further submitted that as the petitioners approached the competent authority for initiating legal action against the complainant, they cannot be tried for commission of offence under Sections 499, 500 and 149 IPC, as they are protected under eighth exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in Kamlesh Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh, 2009 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 663.
Another submission made by counsel is that after submission of inquiry report by the BDPO, the petitioners have already filed an application/appeal against the said inquiry report submitted by the BDPO. It is further argued that as the proceedings in regard to allegations against the complainant that he is in illegal possession of the Panchayat land, are still sub judice before the authorities of the District Development and Panchayats, the complaint filed by the respondent is pre-mature and liable to be quashed for this reason as well.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while refuting the contentions of counsel for the petitioners, contends that as the petitioners levelled false and baseless allegations against the respondent in application as well as spread rumours in the village, as a result whereof the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others, the learned trial Court has rightly passed an order issuing process against the petitioners to face trial for offence under Sections 499/500 read with Section 149 IPC.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
There is no denial that in the revenue record consisting of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris, the complainant (respondent herein) has been recorded in possession of land measuring 8 kanals, ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners being the office bearers etc. of Gram Sudhar Sabha, Village Namoli, Block Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, submitted an application to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, for initiating action against the complainant as he has illegally occupied the land of the Panchayat.
The first question which arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners are protected under Exception eighth appended to Section 499 IPC. A relevant extract from Section 499 IPC and Eighth exception, reads as follows:-
“499. Defamation— Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanations xx xx xx xx
First Exception — xx xx xx
Second Exception—xx xx xx
Third Exception — xx xx xx
Fourth Exception-xx xx xx
Fifth Exception — xx xx xx
Sixth Exception— xx xx xx
Seventh Exception —xx xx xx
Eighth Exception— Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person.— It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.”
A perusal of Eighth exception appended to Section 499 IPC would reveal that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.
It is none of the plea of the respondent that the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh is not a lawful authority over the complainant who is one of the office bearers of the Panchayat.
In Kamlesh Kaur's case (supra), the petitioner made allegations to the police against the respondents for committing an offence and those allegations were found to be false. This Court, dealing with Eighth exception to Section 499 IPC, held that the allegations made to the police alleging commission of offence would be covered in Eighth exception to Section 499 IPC and would not constitute defamation even if the allegations levelled are taken on their face value. It was further held that the petitioner has neither published nor defamed the complainant in public eyes, but the petitioner made a complaint to the police and the complainant would be protected under Eighth exception appended to Section 499 IPC.
However, counsel for the respondent failed to cite any contrary law. In this view of the matter, I find force in the contentions of the petitioners that the petitioners are protected under eighth exception appended to Section 499 IPC. This apart, the correctness and authenticity of the report submitted by the BDPO in favour of the complainant is still pending consideration and adjudication as the petitioners have filed an application/appeal against the said inquiry report. There is nothing on record to suggest that a final decision has been taken in the matter holding that the allegations of illegal possession of Panchayat land by the respondent are false. Another aspect of the matter is that in case it is ultimately found that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are false, the authorities concerned would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 195 of the Code.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent and proceedings emanating therefrom cannot be allowed to continue.
As a result, the petition is allowed and complaint No. 261 dated 12.10.2012, captioned ‘Daler Singh v. Panjab Singh’ (Annexure P8), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, summoning order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P9) and proceedings emanating therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.