Judgment:
Criminal Misc.
No.430-MA o”
1. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
No.430-MA of 2001 Date of decision:
06. 02.2013 Ranjit Singh ......Applicant Versus Gulam Mohd.
and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.B.S.Gill, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.Sanjay Batra,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that respondent No.1 has since died.
He further submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the Criminal Misc.
Application seeking leave to appeal qua respondents No.1 to 3.
Accordingly, Criminal Misc.
Application seeking leave to appeal against respondents No.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Criminal Misc.
application seeking leave to appeal against respondents No.4 to 5 is granted.
Admitted.
Office is directed to register and number the appeal.
Criminal Misc.
No.430-MA o”
2. Main case Respondents No.4 and 5 had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short `IPC') .
The trial Court, vide judgment dated 09.04.2001 acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court had dismissed the complaint against respondents No.4 and 5 on the ground that the same was pre-mature as the decision in the rape case had not yet become final.
Admittedly, the complainant was acquitted by the trial Court in the case registered against him under Section 376 IPC at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5.
The appeal filed by the State against the said judgment of acquittal has been dismissed by this Court on 23.2.2007.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
Learned trial Court, while dealing with regard to registration of false case under Section 376 IPC against the complainant has observed as under:- "Hence, regarding the alleged plantation of rape case, this complaint of defamation is pre-mature, hence in the light of all the above discussion, all the accused stand acquitted of the chrage framed against them of defamation" The trial Court had erred in treating the complaint as pre-mature.
The trial Court should have given a finding on merits as to whether Criminal Misc.
No.430-MA o”
3. offence under Section 500 IPC against respondents No.4 and 5 was made out or not.
In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to direct the trial Court to decide the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 500 IPC against respondents No.4 and 5 on merits .
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the same on merits against respondents No.4 and 5.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on March 01,2013.
( Sabina ) Judge February 06,2013 arya