Skip to content


Prem Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Phool Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1310/1975
Judge
Reported in1980WLN483
AppellantPrem Pal Singh and ors.
RespondentPhool Singh and anr.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredIn Rule v. Dodge and Harris
Excerpt:
penal cade - section 500--defamation and criminal procedure code section 199--expression 'aggrieved person'--explained--? ordinary member of society cannot espouse (sic) of senior active member who has himself compromised and withdrawn (sic) is not an 'aggrieved person'.;the grievance of phool singh in his individual capacity cannot be more than a pain or hurting his sentiments, like any other ordinary member of the society and cannot be considered as an aggrieved person under section 199 cr. p.c. phool singh being an ordinary member of the mission cannot espouse the cause of a senior active member of the mission especially when such senior active member has already compromised the civil suil and has withdrawn it on 23rd may, 1975.;(b) penal code - sections 464, 468 and 469--author of.....n.m. kasliwal, j.1. this petition under section 482 criminal procedure code, 1973, is to quash the proceedings before the judicial magistrate no. 5, jaipur city, in respect of offence under sections 500, 505(2)(3), 468, 469, and 120b i.p.c. the facts leading to this petition are that one phool singh presently residing at nawai.ka mahant-ka rasta, ramganj bazar, jaipur filed a complaint against prempal singh rawat balyogeshwar his wife marelyn lois johnson, dharampal singh sampurnanand and robert (rob) mishler on 9th may,1975 under sections 120b, 153a, 295a, 298, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 500 and 505(2)(3) i.p.c. the substance of the allegations in the complaint is that phool singh complaint is a member and staunch follower of divine light mission and is one of its whole time active members.....
Judgment:

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is to quash the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, in respect of offence under Sections 500, 505(2)(3), 468, 469, and 120B I.P.C. The facts leading to this petition are that one Phool Singh presently residing at Nawai.ka Mahant-ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur filed a complaint against Prempal Singh Rawat Balyogeshwar his wife Marelyn Lois Johnson, Dharampal Singh Sampurnanand and Robert (Rob) Mishler on 9th May,1975 under Sections 120B, 153A, 295A, 298, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 500 and 505(2)(3) I.P.C. The substance of the allegations in the complaint is that Phool Singh complaint is a member and staunch follower of Divine Light Mission and is one of its whole time active members since 1961. The Divine Light Mission is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was founded to propagate spiritual message The founder was Satgurudev Shri Hansji Maharaj, who has since expired. The present patron is Smt. Rajeshwari Devi popularly known as Shri Mataji, the wife of the founder after the death of Shri Hansji Maharaj his youngest son, accused No. 1 Prempal Singh Ravat, popularly known as Bal Yogeshwar was recognised as the spiritual head of the Mission. Although the Mission does not recognized any office like the spiritual head nor does the spiritual head is directly concerned with the management of its affairs but in actual practice and in accordance with the conventions and methods of working of the Mission, the spiritual head has always been functioning as a senior active member of the Mission. During the life time of late Shri Hanji Maharaj the office of spirit ual head and patron vested in one person but after his death Shri Mataji was appointed as the patron and accused No. 1 was recognised as spirtiual Lead. The activities of the Mission are spread through out the world and thus it was net always possible for Shri Mataji to exercise direct personal control at all times on accused No. 1. When the accased Balyogeshwar reached the age of about 16 years, accused Nos. 2 to 5 entered into a conspiracy to exploit his influence and wealth for their own purpose and in pursuance of this conspiracy accused No. 2 to 5 without bringing to the knowledge of his guardian Shri Mataji, lured accused No. 1 into marrying accused No. 2, although accused No. 1 was only 16 years of age while accused No. 2 was aged 24 years, Suddenly in May, 1974, the guardian Shri Mataji as well as other members of the Mission was shocked and surprised to learn that accused No. 1 had married accused No. 2 in Denvar (U.S.A.) by obtaining a permission from guardianship court in America. After the marriage accused No. 1 fell into the trap of other accused persons and began to further indulge in activities which disgusted members of the Mission and its devotees, because accused No. 1 began to the eat meat and take alcoholie drinks and otherwise began to live a life of luxury. The accused No. 1 further shocked the devotees by declaring what his meat-eating and alcohol drinking wife was an 'Avtar' of Durgs' and should be addressed as such. The accused No. 1 apart from the above conduct had already brought ill name to the Mission by allegedly involving himself in a case of smuggling of foreign currency etc. into India Thus in order to save the Mission, the accused No. 1 was removed from the spiritual headship on 2nd April, 1975, and his eldest brother Shri Satpal Singh Ravat, popularly known as Shri Bal Bhagwan was recognised as its spiritual head. This greatly infuriated accused No. 1 and 2.

2. All the accused in conspiracy with each other in order do malign, defame and to harm the reputation and to lower Shri Satpal Singh and the Divine Light Mission in the estimation of the followers of the Divine Light Mission and even in the estimation of the public at large, and to prevent Shri Satpal Singh from effectively functioning as the spiritual head of the Mission and to prevent the followers of the Mission to propagate the ideals of the Divine Light Mission got fabricated defamatory photographs of Shri Satpal Singh Ravat in which he had been shown along with some woman in an indecent posture. This fabrication was made by cleverly super-imposing the photograph of a woman along with Shri Satpal Singh Ravat. There photograps are being circulated in Chokari Ghat Darwazo and particularly in Niwai-ka-Mahant-ka-Rasta, Jaipur. The copies of the fabricated photographs have been enclosed and marked 'A' and 'B' for indentification. The copy of the photographs of (Satpal Singh) which have been used for the said super-imposition have been annexed and marked as Annexure 'C and 'D'.

3. It is further alleged that the accused persons have met several followers of the Divine Light Mission in Jaipur and particularly in Newai-ke-Mahant-ka Rasta, Jaipur and have shown them photograps annexed with the complaint and marked 'A', 'B' and on account of these photograps several followers of the Divine Light Mission of which Shri Satpal Singh is the head have been lowered in the estimation of the public at large and the Hindus and followers of the said Divine Light Mission now regard the complainant, who is the staunch follower of the Divine Light Mission and its spiritual head, and his followers as disgraceful and his photographs have created a hatred against Shri Satpal Singh and his followers. It is also alleged that on 6th May, 1975, the complainant came to know that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 had gone to Jaipur and here circulated the fabricated photographs for character assassination of shri Satpal Singh Ravat and to malign, (sic)the Mission and its followers. Then it is alleged that the accused an guilty of fabricating the photographs and are also guilty of injuring the religious feeling of a large number of devotees at Jaipur and in fact through out the world. The object of the accused as to INSult religion and religious belief of the devotees of the Divine Light Mission and to create ill will and felling of enmity between the devotees and followers of the Divine Light Mission. The complainant who is a devotee of the Divine Light Mission and an active member, has personally felt hurt and distrubed by the aforesaid illegal acts of the accused and has been lowered in estimation of the Hindu public, his friends and relations. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the accused were indulging in similar activities at Delhi, Where suit was filed against them by Shri Satpal Singh Ravat in High Court of Delhi and the High Court was pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining them from publishing any defamatory photographs of Shri Satpal Singh. The accused have, therefore, transferred their centre of activities from Delhi to Jaipur after service of the notice of the said suit on the accused persons. It is also mentioned in the complaint that accused are likely to leave the jurisdiction of the Court to carry on their wrongful activities the where at any time and it is apprehended that they may suddenly leave for abroad. Accused Nos, 2 and 5 are in fact foreign nationals. Along with the complaint a list of 26 witnesses was also filed.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate on 9th May, 1975 recorded the statements of Phool Singh, Ram Babu, Dwarka Prasad and Major Prithvi Singh and passed a detailed order holding that without going into the merits of the case it was prima facie established that the photos were fabricated and distributed with the intention of damaging the reputation of Shri Satpal Singh and of the Divine Light Mission. In the view of the learned Magistrate, there were sufficient grounds for proceedings and taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 500, 505(2)(3), 468, 469 and 120B I.P.C. which were made out prima facie against all the accused at that stage. Learned Magistrate also considered the application of the complainant that the accused persons were preparing to leave India for U.S.A. Thus the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

The complaint is registered for offences under Sections 500, 505{2)(3) 468, 469 and 120B I.P.C. against all the accused. The accused persons shall be called by bailable warrants of arrest with the direction that they should not be arrested if they furnish a surety and personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000/ each, for each of the accused. Each of the accused shall also furnish the undertaking that the will not leave India till their appearance before this Court. The complainant is required to furnish list of witnesses process, fee and copy of the complaint.

The learned Magistrate fixed 15th June, 1975, as the next date for appearance of the accused persons. The accused persons filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9th May, 1975 Is appears that before the revision came up for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge on 10th June, 1975, the accused persons put an appearance in the court of learned Magistrate on 30th May, 1975 and presented two applications. In the application the accused persons informed the Court that Shri Satpal Singh, whs was said to have been defamed by the so-called fake photographs and who had instituted the civil suit in Delhi High Court had later on withdrawn the same on 23rd May. 1975. The matters when were the subject matter of the complaint thus stood compounded between the parties because the plaintiff in the said suit, Shri Satpal Singh Ravat and the defendant] (the set of accused-appellants here) having compounded the matter and were already negotiating on details of the terms, the complaint was bound to be dismissed, Accused persons submitted another application to the effect that they may be exempted from personal attendance till further orders. The Magistrate passed an order on the back of the second application whereby he exempted accused Mrs. Marylon Lois Ravat from personal attendance and allowed her to appear through counsel under Section 203 Cr. P.C. It was also ordered that the had filed her personal bond for Rs. 10 000/ and she may furnish at surety on the next date i.e. 16th June, 1975 The learned Magistrate, it appears, passed no order on the other application filed by the accused-person. The matter came up for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge on l0th June, 1975 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision but also observed in the judgment that under Section 44(2) Cr. P.C. a Court was empowered to impose a condition as was done by she Magistrate for giving an undertaking that they shall not leave India till the disposal of this case. He further observed that it was a different matter that the Court was enthusiastic when it imposed the condition that the accused persons ought to give undertaking not to leave India but when the Excused persons put an appearance in the court on 30th May, 1975 the court did not insist on them to give desired undertaking. The police released the accused persons on bail but the police did not take any undertaking as per directions of the Court, When the accused persons put an appearance on 30th May, 1975, surprisingly the Court did not ask them to furnish surety and personal bond. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore drew the inference that they were allowed to remain on bail without furnishing any bail bonds and that is perhaps why they left India Learned Sessions Judge, however, observed that it became infructuous in as much as the accused persons have left India and the learned Magistrate be asked as to why he did not seek compliance of order dated 9th May, 1975, when the accused persons appeared in the court, when he was enthusiastic to lay down such condition.

5. Thereafter, matter came before the learned Magistrate on 16th June, 1975 and on that date the counsel for the accused persons submitted two applications under Section 205 and 317 Cr. P.C. for dispensing with the personal attendance of the other accused persons. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application and passed an order for issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused No. 1 Prempal Singh Ravat; accused No. 3 Dharampal Singh Ravat and accused No. 5 Robert (Rob) Mishler. The accused Sampuranand was present in person in the court as such no order was passed as regards him and as regards Marolyn Lois Johnson it was ordered that she had not furnished the required undertaking and her counsel was directed to produce her for filing the required undertaking on the next date i.e. 21th August, 1975. By the same order dated 16th June 1975, the learned Magistrate disposed of one more application submitted by the accused persons. In this application the accused applicants had challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 199 Cr. P.C. and no list of witnesses was filed before issuing process of the complaint and the complaint was frivolous and false. The learned Magistrate held that the words person aggrieved had a wider connotation than the words person defamed' and the ccmplainant being an active number of the Mission which was a registered institution had got every light to bring the complaint for the defamation of his Mission and its alleged head. As regards the list of witnesses he held that from the record it was clear that the list of witnesses was filed by the complainant before issue of process. It appears that learned Magistrate passed certain orders forfeiting the bail bonds producer by the accused persons before the police, and after 16th June, 1975, on subsequent dates also passed several orders dismissing subsequent applications for exemption filed by the accused persons and directing their counsel to produce the accused persons in the Court. In these circumstances the present application under S, 482 Cr. P.C. came to be filed by the accused persons in the High Court 26th November, 1975.

6. The petitioners moved a supplementary application on 5th October, 1978, praying that the certified copies of the plaint, an application for contempt and the orders of the Delhi High Court permitting withdrawal of the suit may be allowed to be placed on record of this case. The certified copies of these documents have been annexed as Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' alongwith that application G.M. Lodha J , heard the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and by his order dated 23rd March, 1979 referred the following important point of law for the consideration of a larger Bench:

1) Whether a photograph is a document within the meaning of Section 29 of the I.P.C.?

2) Whether the preparation of photograph by the method of super-imposition as is alleged to have been done in this case in the form of Annexure A, B, C and D comes within the definition of forgery in Section 464 I.P.C.?

3) Whether an active member of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act can be treated as a 'person aggrieved' for filing a criminal complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. for the defamation of the other office bearers of that Society, or the Society.?

7. Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his order dated 10th August, 1979, directed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the whole case may be heard by a larger Bench. Thus the whole case has been referred to us for decision and the learned Counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments on the entire case.

8. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Counsel for the accused petitioners, contended that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the complaint may be taken to be correct no offence is made out against the accused persons and the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance and to issue process against the accused applicants. As regards the offences under Sections 505(2) and (3) and 120B I.P.C. it is submitted that no sanction has been obtained as contemplated under Section 196 Cr. P.C. and no court could have taken cognizance of the above offences without the prior sanction. As regards the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is concerned it is contended that Phool Singh complainant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 Cr. P.C. It is argued that there is no imputation against the Divine Light Mission as such and the alleged photographs at the most can be said to contain an imputation or defamation of Satpal Singh in his individual capacity that he was fond of wine and women. Satpal Singh has not been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed along with the compliant. Satpal Singh is the real brother of accused Prempal Singh and in a litigation concerning these very photographs a compromise has been effected between the partier and Satpal Singh has withdrawn his civil suit filed against the accused persons in Delhi High Court on 23rd May, 1975. The photographs do not contain anything to suggest that the Divine Light Mission has been defamed. Neither the photographs 'C and 'D' nor 'A' and 'B' show as to who was the author of these photographs. It is also submitted that defamation has not been considered in the category of other criminal offences and there is a clear mandate of the Legislature by enacting Section 199 Cr. P.C. that no court shall take cognizance of such offences except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The purpose of enacting such provision is that the person defamed must be put to the exposure of cross-examination. If another person is allowed to prosecute a case of defamation the accused may be deprived of an opportunity to cross examine the real aggrieved person. The interest of commnunity in cases of offences of defamation is not so great as to allow strangers of busy bodies or even friends or followers of a particular sect to bring the law into motion for injury to their sentiments. It is contended that if only feelings and sentiments of a person are hurt then he cannot fall into the category of an aggrieved person and he must prove an injury to his legal rights. Reliance is placed on Hussainbhay Ismailji v. Emperor AIR 1936 Sind 98, Dhirendra Nath Sen and Anr. v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra AIR 1936 Sind 98 Adi Firozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai AIR 1936 Sind 98, D Narasinghan and Ors. v. T.V. Chokhappa : [1971]82ITR527(SC) , and Queen Empress v. Nage Paw Gale : Criminal Revision No. 431/1892 reported in selected judgments and rulings of the Court of Judicial Commissioner, lower Burma and the Special Court. It is next contended that no offence under Section 468 or 469 I.P.C. is made out, for an act to become forgery it must be proved that a false document was made as defined under Section 464 I.P.C. According to the learned Counsel Clause (iii) of Section 464 I.P.C. is not relevant. As regards chause (i) and (ii) of S, 464 I.P.C. it is contended that the author of the original document must be known. Unless the author of photograph 'C' and 'D' were known, it cannot be said that photographs 'A' and 'B' were prepared without lawful authority. It is argued that taking a photograph of a person is not prohibited under the law. Even if a document contains a false statement, it cannot make it false document unless the document tells a lie about itself It is also submitted that according to the allegations made by Satpal Singh in the plaint filed in the Delhi High Court these photographs were alleged to be forged in USA and under Section 188 Cr. P.C. when an offence is committed outside India, no such offence cannot enquired into or tried in India except with the previous section of the General Government. Is is thus contended that for accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 sanction of the Central Government was necessary and as for accused Nos 2 and 5 who are American citizens, they cannot be enquired into or tried in India for offences committed in America. It is then submitted that when no offence at all is made out or could be tried by the learned Magistrate, the continuation of such proceedings would be a clear abuse of process of the Court and such proceedings must be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Reliance is placed on the Allowing observations in Motisingh Gambhirsingh v. The State : AIR1961Guj117 :

Even if the accused has made a part of the document, namely column 5 of Ex. 12 that part in fact was made or executed by the person by whom is purports to be executed, namely the accused and therefore accused cannot be said to have made a false document. Including in a document, certain false recitals or particulars is not forgery. The mere making of a false statement in a document would not come within Section 468 I.P.C. Code and would not amount to forgery. Here we are dealing with a receipt which the law does not require to be a tested. It is not necessary to consider in this case whether falsely attesting a document which the law requires to be a tested would amount to forgery.

9. Reliance is also placed on Rule v. Dodra and Harris (1971) 2 All ER 158 in which it has been held as under:

The way the matter is really put is this. Counsel for the appellant Dodge, who hag put his arguments very conclsively, says this, that any implication which one can infer from the document that the parties intended to implement it is a lie as to the intention of the parties, but is not a lie as to the document itself. It is a lie about something that is extrinsic. So in a very old case, R.V. Jones, a man called William Jones was , indicated for that he had in his custody a forged paper writing purporting to be a back note, and it was worded as follows: 'I promise to pay John Wilson, Esq., or Bearer, Ten Pounds, and then it was dated London, March 4, 1976 For Self and Company of my Bank in England: signed 'John Jones', he was charged with forgery on the ground that this document was in effect a sham. He had no bank account which warranted his making out this note. But Lord Mans field C.J. ruled that although there may be false representation, there was no question here of forgery; it was not a forgery. The document did not tell a lie about itself.

10. In Trilok Singh and Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850, it has been observed that:

It becomes an offence when the paper is fabricated into a document of the kind which attracts the relevant provisions of the Penal Cods making it an offence or when such a document is used as a genuine document, Even assuming that the appellants either by themselves or in the company of same others went and seized the truck on 30 7-1973 from the house of the respondent they could and did claim to have done so in exercise of their bonafide right of seizing the truck on the respondent's failure to pay the third monthly instalment in time. It was, therefore, a bonafide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the truck. On the face of the competent petition itself the highly exaggerated version given by the respondent that the appellants went to his house with a mob armed with deadly weapons and committed the offence of dacoity in taking away the truck was so very unnatural and untrustworty that it could not take the matter out of the realm of civil dispute. Nobody on the side of the respondent was hurt. Even a search was not given to any body.

In our opinion on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the criminal prosecution deserves to be qnashed. On behalf of the respondent it was argued that the appellants filing a petition in the High Court for quashing the proceeding before issuance of the summons was premature and the High Court could not have quashed it. In our opinion the point is so wholly without substance that it has been stated merely to be rejected. Since the parties during the course of the hearing in the appeal showed their inclination to settle up and end all their disputs and quarrels in relation to matter in question after we indicated our view that we are going to allow the appeal and quash the proceedings, we have not thought it necessary to elaborately give other reasons in support of our order.

11. In Devi Sahai v. Gordhan Das 1977 Cr. LR. (Raj) 425: it has been held as under:

It must, therefore, he held that neither the allegations made in the complaint, nor the other material placed on the record, nor the statements of the witnesses recorded in support thereof on behalf of the complainant, even if taken on their face value, make out any case against the accused so far as the misappropriation of the alleged amount of Rs. 1001/-said to have been donated by New Anand Soap Factory works is concerned. Having considered the 'entire record, it appears to me that the complaint has been filed merely to harass the accused and is apparently a manifestation of infighting between serious fractions in the District Congress Committee, Sirohi.

12. Mr. Jethmalani, however, did not address any argument on the first point referred by the learned Single Judge whether a photograph is a document within the meaning of Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code.

13. Mr. P.C. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complaint frankly conceded that as regards the offence under Section 505 I.P.C. the case cannot be tried without obtaining the required sanction. He further contended that so far as the complainant Phool Singh was concerned, it did not matter where forgery was committed, but he was aggrieved by the accused persons in India which consisted of the defamation and using as genuine any document which the accused persons knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document. As regards the offence of defamation it is contended that by circulating the photographs 'A' and 'B' the Divine Light Mission has been defamed. The complainant being a whole time active number of such Mission, he is certainly an aggrived person as not only the reputation of the Divine Light Mission but his own reputation has been harmed. It is a submitted that to become a member of the Divine Light Mission one has to express complete faith in the spiritual bead or 'Guru of the Mission Such 'Guru is the life and soul of the whole organisation and any imputation harming the reputation of such Guru would certainly harm the reputation of the organisation as a whole and also of the complainant, who is a disciple and devotee of such 'Guru'. It is also contended that the complainant is not like an ordinary member of the mission, but is a whole time active member, and to work for the Divine Light Mission in Rajasthan is his calling. Learned Counsel also drew out attention to explanation 2 to Section 499 I.P.C. and contended that the words 'as such' in explanation 2 only qualifies the person as such and not 'a company' or 'an association used in this explanation. It is thus argued than any imputation concerning an association shall amount to defamation of such an association. The word 'concerning' should be given a wider import and thus any act which might be an imputation touching the activities of an association which consists of its general body, the governing body and executive shall amount to a defamation of such an association. It is also contended that if the reputation of a head of an institution or association is injured, it would be a defamation of such institution or association as a whole and every member of such institution or association will fall within the meaning of an aggrieved person. For an act to be an offence of defamation she act should be wrong which all rightful thinking persons considered to be so. Learned Counsel submitted that the cases cited by Mr. Jethmalani are clearly distinguishable. In the offence of defamation each case has go be seen on its own facts and circumstances. According to the learned Counsel, the complainant in the facts and circumstances of this care is neither a stranger nor falls in the category of busy body of meddle-some interloper. The complainant has a real grievance of his own and is a person directly affected by the act of the accused persons and is thus an aggrieved person. Learned Counsel then submitted that the complainant is not at all concerned with the compromise effected between Satpal Singh and other accused persons in the civil litigation instituted in the Delhi High Court These proceedings are neither relevant nor can be seen in the present proceedings initiated on the basis of the present complaint.

14. Mr. Khanna also contended that the photographs 'A' and 'B clearly fall within the mischief of making a false document as defined in Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 464 I.P.C. It is not at all necessary that the author of photographs 'C and 'D from which photographs 'A' and B' have been prepared, should be known. It is contended that no photograph can be without an author and photographs 'C and 'D' were taken by some person and if photographs 'A' and 'B' have been prepared without his authority and knowing or believing that such authority has not been given, it would suffice to make a false document. Learned Counsel further argued that a photograph depicts a scene of a particular evert existing at the particular moment and if a person by cancellation or otherwise alters such scene in a decument, then it certainly amounts to making a false document Learned Counsel submitted his argument by giving an illustration that if scene of an accident is taken in a photograph and then something is taken out of it and replaced by other kinds of scene by preparing another photograph, then the second photograph will amount to making a file document and thus will amount to an offence of forgery under the Indian Penal Code.

15. Mr. Khanna, also laid great emphasis on the conduct of the accused persons. He submitted that the accused persons did not appear on 16th June, 1975, the date fixed for their appearance, nor gave any undertaking for not leaving India and thus had no legal right or equity to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. He also contended that the accused persons not only deserve no sympathy, on the other hand they are guilty of contempt of court and this court should take proceedings for contempt against them. As regards their appearance on 30ty May, 1975, before the Magistrate it is contended that no such date was fixed in the case and the original file had also been summoned by the Sessions Judge and the fact that the Magistrate did not ask them to give an undertaking on 30th May, 1975 does not in any manner condone the contempt shown towards the Court It is also submitted in this regard that even if this Court would dismiss the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. it would not be possible for the Magistrate to secure the presence of the accused persons who have admittedly gone to U.S.A. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain news paper reports placed on record to show that accused No. 1 had no intention to return to India and had scant regard for the proceedings taken against him and pending in the court of the Magistrate.

16. Mr. Khanna also argued that the Magistrate by his order dated 16th June, 1975, has held that Phool Singh complainant was an aggrieved person and as the said order could have been challenged by filing a revision, the accused persona cannot resort to the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C. It is contended that the jurisdiction of this court under Sections 482 Cr. P.C. is very much limited and can only he exercised in the following circumstances as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi AIR 1976 sc 1947:

(1) Where the allegation made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in the support of the same taken at (heir face value make cut absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused:

(2) where the allegation made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and, arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or no materials which arc wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defeats, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complainant by legally competent authority and the like.

According to Mr. Khanna the case does not fall in either of the contingencies laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

17. An regards the offence under Section 505(2)(3) I.P.C. is concerned it is admitted even by the learned Counsel for the complainant that no sanction has been obtained frorn the CentralGovernment or of the State Government, as required under Section 196(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code can take cogaizance of such offence without obtaining the sanction of, the above authority. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, not competent to ISSUE any process for offence under Section 505(2) and (3).

18. Now We shall examine the respective contentions with regard to the offence of defamation. Section 499 days down the offence of defamation which reads as under:

Section 499 Defamation-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makas or publishes any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe (hat such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excerpted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1 lt may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives

Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation cencorning a company or an association or cellaction of persons as such.

Explanation 3-AN imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loath-some state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

From the reading of the above provisions it would be clear that though the main section deals with the harming of she reputation of a person but explanation 2 includes imputation concerning a company or association or collections of persons as well. The case of the complainant is that the action of the accused persons amounts to defamation by harming the reputation of the complainant himself as well as that of the Divine Light Mission of which complainant is an active member. Section 199(1) Cr. P.C. lays down that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complainant made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The proviso to the above Sub-section makes an exception with regard to persons under the age of 18 years an idiot a lunatic or suffering from sickness or infirmity is unable to make a complaint or is a woman who according to the legal customs and manners ought not to be compelled to appear in public and in such class of cases some other person may also with the leave of the court can make a complaint on his on her behalf. Sub-section (6) of Section 199 further lays down that nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. It is not the case of the complainant that he is exercising power on behalf of any person falling within the proviso to Section (1) of Section 199 Cr. P.C. Thus, we have to examine whether Phool Singh complainant is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section (1) of Section 199 Cr. P.C. Ordinarily the rule in criminal cases is that any person can set the law into motion though he may be a person who might not be concerned or affected by the offence. The Legislature, however, thought it fit that in certain categories of offeree, only a person who is aggrieved by such offence can set the law into motion by filing a complaint. The object behind this rule is that such offence do not effect the peace or tranquility of the other persons, nor it is a concern of the State and at is only the person who is directly affected by such offences should move the court, otherwise the Court shall not take cognizance of such offence. The offence of defamation is one kind of such offence. Thus, Section 199 Cr. P.C. which restricts the power of a Court to take cognizance except upon a complaint by an aggrieved person, being of the nature of an exception to the general rule of Criminal Law, must be given a strict construction. In order to find out whether a person is an aggrieved person or not for the offence of defamation, we shall have to examine the facts and circumstances of such case. The expression 'aggrieved person' came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578 in order to determine as to who has locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sarkaria J. speaking for the court held that the meaning of the words 'aggrieved person may vary according to the Statute. Some times the words are given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal right. A more, liberal approach is required in the background of statutcs which do not deal with the property rights but deal with the professional conduct and morality. After taking into consideration a number of author ities it was observed as under:

To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infrigned. Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law has been prejudicially and directly affected by by the act or omission of the authority complained of? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance of inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be head by the authority before it took the impugned action. If so was he prejudically effected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words 'person aggrieved' is being considered, a special welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it statue dealing with private rights of particular individuals?

Now let us apply these tests to the case in hand. The Act and the Rules with which we are concerned are not designed to set norms of moral or professional conduct for the community at large or even a section thereof. They only regulate the exercise of private rights of an individual to carry on a particular business on his property. In this context, the expression ''person aggrieved' must receive a strict construction.

19. A civil suit was filed by Satpal Singh against the accused persons for declaration, permanent injunction and damages on 1st May, 1975 and the present complaint was filed thereafter by Phool Singh one of the devotees of Satpal Singh on 9th May, 1975. In para 1 of the complaint it has been mentioned that the complainant is a member and staunch follower of Divine Light Mission and he is one of its whole time active member since 1961. In para 2 of the complaint it is mentioned that the Mission does not recognised any office like the spiritual head nor is the spiritual head directly concerned with the management of its affairs but in actual practice and in accordance with the functions and methods of working of the Mission the spiritual head has always been functioning as a senior active member of the Mission, (emphasis supplied). It is also mentioned that during the lifetime of late Shri Hansji Maharaj the office of spiritual head and patron vested in one person but after his death Shri Mataji was appointed patron and accused No. 1 was recognised as the spiritual head Along with the memorandum of association of the Divine Light Mission a list of 17 persons has been attached which consists of the President. Vice President, General Secretary, Two Secretaries, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and 10 other members of the executive but Phool Singh complainant does not find place in those 17 persons. According to the rules and regulations of the Divine Light Mission it consists of 4 classes of members of the Society: (i) Patron, (ii) Life Member, (iii) Ordinary Member and (iv) Honrary member. The governing body of the socisty consists of the following office bearers:

(1)-President - 1

(2)-Vice President 1

(3)-Treasurer 1

(4)-Assistant Treasurer 1

(5)-General Secretary 1

(6)-Secretaries 2

(7)-Members 10

20. This governing body has been authorised to enrol members of the society. Phool Singh complainant is admittedly not a patron and he has also not said that he is life member of the society and as each he falls in the category of an ordinary member. As already observed above there is no office like spiritual head in the society which is at present occupied by Satpal Singh according to the complainant Clause (a) of Rule 2 only lays down that any man or woman who is disciple of Paramant Satguru Dev Shri Hansji Maharaj of Prem Nagar, Hardwar (U.P.) or his spiritual heir and successor An and Kand Shri Satpalji Maharaj also known as Shri B 1 Bhagwanji, who subscribes to the objects of the society shall be eligible for membership of the society irrespective of caste, creed and nationality on payment of the prescribed membership fee. Thus from the above provisions it can be deduced that Phool Singh complainant is only holding a status of an ordinary member in the society and it can also be said that he is disciple of Shri Hanji Maharaj or his spiritual heir and successor Shri Satpalji Maharaj also known as Shri Bal Bhagwanji. There is no separate category of 'whole time active member' in the society to differentiate Phool Singh from other ordinary members. Every member of the society is to be disciple of Shri B. 1 Bhagwanji and Phool Singh is in the category of one of these. In Queen Empress v. Noa Shun(S.B. Criminal Revision No. 431/ 1892) (supra) the words 'Aggrieved' in case of defamation was treated as an equivalent with the expression in case of defamation was treated as an equivalent with the expression 'person 'person injured', the object of the section apparently being to limit the right of complaint to the person who had suffered injury. In the above case the accused spread a report regarding the moral character of a certain pongyi. The complaint was made not by the pongyi but by a gentleman who stated that he was Kyaungtaga or founder of the monastery presided over by the person defamed. It was observed as under:

The reuptation of a living person who is an adult and sui juris seems to be exclusively within his own protection, If he does not take steps to defend it, no one else can do so. From prudential motives or otherwise a person defamed might often prefer to refrain from action, and it would be very anomalous if any of his friends who happened to feet hurt by the imputation could fores the matter into the publicity likely to result from a prosecution Section 345 shows that the only person who can compound a prosecution for defamation is the person defamed, and indicates clearly the intention of the law to leave to every one the exclusive right of vindicating his own reputation.

In the present case the complainant with the consent of the person defamed, who may have had scruples, connected with his calling as a pongyi, about going into Court but this fact cannot give him the right of making a complaint which his by law been conferred solely on the person aggrieved.

The above observations apply is a the case before as and we adopt she same reasoning.

21. In Hussain Bhoy's Ismailji's case AIR 1936 Sind 98 (supra) an articles appeared in the Sind observer, which appeared to have been brought to the notice of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb who is supposed to be the person intended. A letter was written to one Shaikh Ebrahim who describes himself as 'Secretary to his Holiness,' This letter mentioned as under:

His Holiness has been much aggrieved at the editorial and similarly the feelings of 'His Moliness all true followers who might have read or heard about the said editorial must have been seriously injured. I have therefore been commanded to inform you that His Holiness has granted you permission to take legal steps in the matter as one of the aggrieved persons.

22. The above letter was addressed to Mr. Hussainbhoy Ismailji Contractor, 1st Class Honorary Magistrate. Mr. Hussein Bhoy accordingly filed a complaint under s, 500 I.P.C. This complaint WAS dismissed by the City Magistrate of Karachi and a revision against the order of she City Magistrate was also dismissed by a Bench of the Sind Judicial Commissioner's court. It was observed in the above case by Roop Chand A.J.C. as under:

Likewise, where the person defamed is an adult and a male who is neither insane nor idiotic nor incapable of attending Court owing to sickness or other physical infirmity, no other parson may institute a prosecution on his behalf. The High Priest is a male adults and does not Come within the purview of the proviso. It is, thereform, for him to complain, and for nobody whether on the strength of his written authority or otherwise. The mere fact that the feelings of the complainant have been injured in conequence of a defamatory statement made against his religious head affords him no ground under the law to prosecute the accused for defamation and that is the only question in issue at present.

23. In Dhirendra Nath Sen's case AIR 1936 Sind 98 (supra) the complainant Raja Kanti Bhadra who described himself as a member of Shoulmari Ashram, filed a complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. against the editor and printer and publisher of a 'Bangali Daily called the 'Jugantar.' In the 7th October, 1965 issue of the 'Jugantar' a nows item was published, the English translation whereof is as follows;

24, The Foreign Minister stated that the Sadhu of Shoulmari Ashram who calls himself Subash Chandra Bose is not Netaji and the Government has not the least doubt about this fact that he is not'. The Magistrate First Class Coach Bihar after perusing the report of the Magistrate IInd Class, summoned both the accused under Section 500 I.P.C. This order as also the proceedings based thereupon were challenged by the two accused persons in the High Court. An argument was advanced by the counsel for the complainant that the defamation alleged related to the head of Institution. His Holiness. Shrimad Sardanandjee, touching thereby all the members of the Ashram, who were his disciples In this context it was also submitted that the impunged publication having lowered the reputation of the complainant who was a member of she said Ashram and as such a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 Cr. P.C. Mr. Datt, learned Counsel for the accused persons made a contention that the aggrieved complainant should not merely be one sharing in common with every member of an organization. Where, therefore, an editor of a paper writes an editorial which is highly defamatory to a spiritual head of a certain community, an individual of that community is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 165 Cr. P.C. (old). The learned Judge of Calcutta High Court considered the above contention and observed as under;

I respectfully agree with the principles laid down by the authorities referred to above as also with the observations made in she cases cited before and I hold that the interpretation sought to be given by Mr. Jana to the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is untenable as it seeks so cloak the same with too vide a meaning, much beyond the indention of the legislature. There has been in fact no proper cognizance in this case as enjoined under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the first contention of Mr. Dutt succeeds.

25. In G. Narasimhan and Ors. v. T.V. Chokkappa AIR 1972 SC 2609 the Supreme Court while considering the meaning of expression 'aggrieved person 'under Section 198 of the Code observed as under.

That section lays down that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter alia under Ch. XXI of the Penal Code (that is. Sections 499 to 508) except upon a complaint made by come persons aggrieved of such offence. Section 198, thus, lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, only and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a Magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complainant filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal.

26. Mr, Khanna placed reliance on the Bar Council of Maharashtra v. R.V. Dabhalkar AIR 1975 SC 2092. in which a Bench of 7 Judges considered the question whether the Bar Council of a State was a person aggrieved to maintain an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In the above case the Supreme Court speaking through Ray C.J. indicated how the expression person aggrieved is to be interpretated in the context of a situate thus:

The meaning of the words 'a person aggrieved' may vary according to the context of the statute One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is meterially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled In order to make one a person aggrieved'. Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him, The meaning of the words 'a person aggrieved' is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words 'person aggrieved' in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal rights or burdens or financial interests.

27. In our view, the above observations are of no help to the complainant. The above observations relate to this words 'person aggrieved' in the context of the provisions of the Advocates' Act and while dealing with the role of the Bar Council under the Advocates' Act their lordships observed that it was comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics and as such the words person aggrieved' should be given a wide import and should not be subjected to restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal fights or burdens or financial interests In this background for statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality, the above observations have been given. In our view such wide import cannot be given to the words person aggrieved' under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

28. That apart we cannot loose sight of the fact that the civil litigation initiated by Satpal Singh in Delhi High Court claiming a relief of declaration, possession and damages for defamation has come to an and by a compromise arrived at between the parties. The main aggrieved person Satpal Singh has not come forward to file this complaint. He has not been cited even as a witness by the complainant Phool Singh In the face of these circumstances it cannot be said that Phool Singh still remains an aggrieved person when the main aggrieved person seems to have compounded or has settled his scores with his brother Prempal Singh. If Phool Singh is now acting only as a stooge of Satpal Singh and this litigation is continued by Satpal Singh from behind, we cannot permit him to do so. The grievance of Phool Singh in his individual capacity cannot be more than a pain or hurting his sentiments like any other ordinary member of the society and cannot be considered as 'an aggrieved person under Section 199 Cr. P.C. Even otherwise from the alleged photograph.'A' and 'B' it cannot be said that the Divine Light Mission itself has been defamed because these photographs neither make any mention of the Divine Light Mission nor make any imputation on the objects or working of the Divine Light Mission, According to the complainant himself as mentioned in the complaint the spiritual head is a senior active member of the Mission. Thus we think that Phool Singh began ordinary member of the Mission cannot espouse the cause of a senior active member of the mission especially when such senior active member has already compromised the civil suit and has withdrawn it on 23rd May, 1975.

29. Now we take up the offences under Sections 468 and 469 I.P.C. As regards she offences under Section 468 we may at the outset mention that no offence under this section is made out as the ingredients that the forged document shall be used for the purpose of cheating are totaliy lacking in the present case. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made wholly or in part by forgery. Making false document has been defined in s, 464 I.P.C. We are concerned with the first two clauses of Section 464 which are reproduced as under:

S 464(1)-Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intension of causing it to be believed that such documents or part of a document was made, signed, seated or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

(2) Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration or

(3) ....

In order to bring the case in the first clause it must be proved that the document or part of it has been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was so made by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knew that it was not made. In the present case it is not known as to who is the author of photographs 'C and 'D' as they do not contain any mark of indent fication of the author, nor the alleged spurious photographs A' and B' mention the name of the author causing it to be believed that the same are made with the intention of causing it to be believed that these photographs were made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority it was not made. In other words, unless the author of photographs 'C' and 'D' is known how can the author of 'A' and 'B' can be imputed to have intension of causing it to be believed that such photographs were being made without the authority of such person. The accused persons are at best the authors of photographs 'A' and B' which are new documents. The document i.e. photographs may be showing a false scene but that does not mean that the document sells lie about itself. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, the photagraphs 'A' and B' do not fall without the ambit of Clause (1) of See. 464 I.P.C. In order to fall within ambit of Clause (2) there must be an alteration of a document by cancellation or otherwise after it has been made or executed. In our view the photographs 'C' and 'D' have not been altered by cancellation or otherwise. The photographs 'C and 'D' placed on record remain as such and the same have neither been cancelled nor altered. Photograph 'C shows a scene where Satpal Singh is sitting in the company of several other persons. This particular scene has not been altered. At the most it can be said that in photograph 'B' Satpal Singh has been shown in the same post as in photograph 'C'. This means that the posture of Satpal Singh alone from photographs 'G' has been taken out and then it has been shown in the company of woman holding a glass in her hand and placing her hand round the neck of Satpal Singh in photographs B'. There could have been a possibility for an argument by the learned Counsel for the complainant if in the scene depicted in photograph 'C itself Satpal Singh would have been shown along with a woman holding a glass and a hand round the neck as shown in photograph 'B' But by looking at photograph 'B' alone, nobody can be made to believe that it was a false document of photograph 'C or has any connection with the scene shown in photograph 'C'. Now as regards photograph 'D' is concerned it does not depict any scene at all and it is a photograph of Satpal Singh alone It appears that in photograph 'A' the same posture of Satpal Singh has been shown along with a woman having a glass in one head and touching his face by another hand. This cannot by any argument be said to an alteration by cancellation or otherwise of photograph 'D'. Whatever other offence the accused persons might have committed by preparing spurious photographs 'A' and 'B' but in our view these photographs cannot fall within the ambit of false document under Section 464 I.P.C. The photographs 'A' and B' showing Satpal Singh a spiritual head in the company of a woman, with a glass of wine in her hand, may be highly defamatory, having his reputation as a spiritual head, but these photographs cannot be said to be forged document In the absence of the photographs 'A' and B' being forged document, no offence under Section 468 or 469 I.P.C. can be made out.

30. In Motisingh Gambhirsing's case AIR 1961 Guj. 117 (supra) Raju J, held that mere making of a false statement in a document would not come within Section 464 and would not amount to a forgery. That would amount to making a false statement and would not amount to making a false document.

31. In Rule v. Dodge and Harris (1971) 2 All ER 158 (supra) one Harris met and borrowed money from a man called Gold and in order to help Harris. One Dodge made a conspiracy with Harris in order to discourage Mr. Gou to pursue his writ for the money he had lent to Harris. In pursuance to this plan Harris made out two bonds, one for 7000 and one for 3000 purporting to be payable by Dodge to Harris. These document were quite properly executed by Dodge, but of course the statement made therein with regards to these sums were nature. At the trial a submission was made to the common sergeant that these two bonds were not forgery in law and accordingly, when the appellant Harris showed them to Mr. Gold he was not uttering a forgery. However, the common serjeant over-ruled this submission and directed the Jury that the documents were forgery capable of being so regarded, and accordingly, Dodge was convicted of forgery and Harris of uttering. While dealing with the above matter Phillimore Lord Justice held that although there may be false representations but there was no question of forgery. The document did not tell a lie about itself.

32. In the plain filed by Satpal Singh in the Delhi High Court it is clearly mentioned that these photographs were forged in U.S.A. Under Section 188 Cr. P.C. when an offence is committed outside India no such offence can be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Thus, for an offence of forgery itself sanction of the Central Govt was necessary so far as accused No. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned and no offence of forgery could he enquired into or tried in India against accused No. 2 and 5 who are American Citizens, Mr. Khanna also frankly concended that no offence of forgery could be enquired into or tried in India but his contention was that accused persons were guilty of defamation by circulating a forged document in India. We have already dealt above with the offence of defamation and require no further discussion.

33. AS regards offence under Section 120B I.P.C. is concerned, when 'the main offences are not made out, conspiracy to commit such offence also falls to the ground. Moreover, the offence of conspiracy itself the same could not be tried in the absence of a sanction.

34. We do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Khanna that the petitioners had a remedy of filing a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 16th June, 1975, and without resorting to that remedy the accused persons cannot come to this court by a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The petitioner have challenged the entire proceedings and the process issued against them in respect of the various offences by the learned Magistrate. By his order dated 16th June, 1975, he has done nothing more than to maintain his order of issuing of the process under Section 500 I.P.C. by holding that the objection of the accused persons that Phool Singh was not an aggrieved person, was not sustainable. The petitioners by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr, P.C. have challenged the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate and issuing of process under Section 500 I.P.C., as well as other offences under Indian Penal Code and while considering the validity of taking cognizance and issuing of process, if we arrive at the conclusion that no offence was made out then automatically the order dated 16th June, 1975, falls to the ground. That apart this court while deciding a petition under Section 432 Cr. P.C. now can consider all the orders passed in the proceedings by the learned Magistrate.

35. Now we shall examine the submission of Mr. Khanna that the petitioners should not be heard on a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on account of their contumacious conduct. The petitioners were summoned for appearing on 16th June, 1975. They had filed a revision is the Sessions Court on 27th May, 1975, against the order of the Magistrate dated 9th May, 1975 However, the revision could not be heard till 10th June, 1975, and in the mean time the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate of their own accord on 30th May, 1977, but it appears that on that date the Magistrate did not ask the accused persons to give an undertaking for not leaving India. The Sessions Judge himself in his order dated l0th June, 1975, has called for his explantion in the following manner:

The learned Magistrate be asked as to why he did not seek compliance of the order dated the 9th May, 1975, when the accused persons appeared in the court, when he was so enthusiastic to lay down such conditions.,

It is somewhat strange that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 16th Junes 1975, has put the liability on the Station House Officer, Police Station, Ramganj as to why such undertaking was not taken from the accused persons. For his own mistake he has mentioned that as the case file was not available on 30th May, 1975, at the time the accused persons appeared before him it was not clear whether the required undertaking was furnished or not. The order dated 9th May, 1975, only directed the accused persons to furnish the undertaking that they will not leave India till their appearance before the Court. The explanation of the petitioners in this regard is that they had put in their appearance on 30th May, 1975, and when no undertaking was demanded by the Magistrate himself, they did not commit any contempt or violation of any order of the Magistrate. It is not disputed that two of the accused persons i.e. Marelyn Lois Johnson and Robert (Bob) Mishler are U.S. Nationals The Magistrate himself exempted Marelyn Lois Johnson from personal appearance. Accused No. 4 Sampuranand is appearing in the court and was also present at the time of hearing of this petition before us. According to Mr. Jethmalani the accused persons have to deliver their discourses all over the world and have to manage the activities of the Ashrams which are located as far distant places and as such it had become necessary for them to leave India but they had no intention all of disregarding or flouting the orders of the court and still the accused persons were willing to abide by whatever directions may be given by this Court while disposing of the application tinder Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was also contended that to approach a higher court challenging the order of the lower Court on the ground that the same was illegal or without jurisdiction can never amount to disrespect to the over court. There is no denying fact that the conduct of the accused persons cannot be said to be totally above board in this regard. The accused persons, should have appeared before she Magistrate on 16th June, 1975 and then should have left India after seeking permission from the Magistrate. The accused persons should know that the dignity of a Court has to be maintained and whatever directions had been given by the Magistrate, they should have first complied with these directions and then seek indulgence of the Magistrate or to take appropriate proceedings. In the higher courts, if they were not able to get proper redress at the hands of the Magistrate However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the accused persons are guilty of wilful contempt of 'the order of the Magistrate. Same mistake crept in on account of the reason that on 30th May, 1975, the Magistrate did not ask the accused persons to give an undertaking for not leaving India Thus, taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration it can not be said that the petitioners should be shut out from invoking the inherent power of this Court. There is no allegation against Sampuranand accused as regards his conduct and even if his application is to be considered for quashing the proceedings, we are bound to decide the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on merits. Thus, we find no force in this objection of Mr. Khanna.

36. It is true that the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. have to be exercised sparingly but where we find that no case can prima facie be made out against the accused persons, it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow such proceedings to continue. Mr. Khanna also contened that the offences of which cognizance have so far been taken, even if not proved, the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. or under some other section can be proved by leading evidence and as such the whole proceeding should not be quashed. The complain an though had mentioned Section 471 in the complaint yet the Magistrate himself did not consider in proper to take cognizance under that section and has not issued process for this offence. In our opinion, when the main offence of defamation and forgery have fallen to the ground, no other offence is made out on the allegations in the complaint. Satpal Singh, who has been shown in the photographs 'A' and 'B' has himself compromised the dispute with the accused persons and nearly 5 years have elapsed since the date of alleged offence, it would be unjudicious on our part to send the case back for further inquiry and trial for some other offences.

37. In the result we allow this petition and quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 1/1975 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, on the basis of the complaint filed by Shri Phool Singh on 9th May, 1975.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //