Criminal Misc. No. M-9857 of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc. No. M-9857 of 2002
Date of Decision: 7.1.2009
Vir Sanghvi and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
None for respondents no.2 and 3.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the Editor and Printer-
Publisher of Hindustan Times Limited. They have been summoned by
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind in a complaint
(Annexure P5) vide summoning order dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure P9)
for offence of defamation.
The primary grievance of the petitioners is that Pankaj Singh
son of Dr. Hoshiar Singh has no locus standi to prosecute the petitioners
as only Dr. Hoshiar Singh, who was defamed, was competent to file
complaint against the petitioners in view of Section 199 Cr.P.C.
On a question asked by the Court whether Dr. Hoshiar Singh
Criminal Misc. No. M-9857 of 2002 2
is alive today or not, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to state
present status of the complainant in categoric terms.
On observation made that son of Dr.Hoshiar Singh being legal
representative is entitled to prosecute the petitioner, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that at the time when complaint was instituted
Dr. Hoshiar Singh was alive. This is a disputed question of fact.
Therefore, the trial Court ought to examine at first instance whether the
complainant in his own right or as a legal representative of Dr. Hoshiar
Singh can prosecute the petitioners or not.
Therefore, the present petition is disposed off with observation
that the petitioners at first instance shall file an application before the
trial Court wherein they will raise a plea that in view of Section 199
Cr.P.C., the complainant has no locus standi to prosecute the
petitioners. On the application so made, the parties shall be heard, law
in this issue shall be gone into by the trial Court and it is expected that
the trial Court shall pass a well-reasoned speaking order. Needless to
say that the petitioners shall have liberty to approach the appropriate
Court against the order of trial Court if the same is not passed in favour
of the petitioners.
Since in the present case, complaint was instituted on
28.11.2000 and the legal issues are to be determined by the Court,
personal appearance of the petitioners is exempted by the trial Court till
the application so filed is decided.
In the present case, since the trial Court will be deciding the
application whether the complainant has a locus standi to maintain the
complaint or not till the application is decided, trial Court shall not insist
Criminal Misc. No. M-9857 of 2002 3
furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioners.
With the observations made above, the present petition is
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
January 7, 2009
“DK”