http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1239 of 1999

PETITIONER: RAM SWARUP

RESPONDENT: MOHD. JAVED RAZACK & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2005

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With office report )

Date: 23/02/2005  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR

For Appellant(s)                    Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr. B.Vikas, Adv.                    Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy ,Adv.

               Mr. Ramesh N.Keswani, Adv.

For R-1         Mr.Ram Lal Roy, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                J U D G M E N T          The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.         NON-REPORTABLE.    

       (Sheetal Dhingra)                          (Vijay Dhawan)             Court Master                            Court Master                 [Signed judgment is placed on the file]  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1239 OF 1999

RAM SWARUP                                        Appellant (s)

                       VERSUS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

MOHD. JAVED RAZACK & ANR                          Respondent(s)

B.P. SINGH,J.                   In this appeal by special leave the appellant has impugned the order of the High  Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.5314 of 1998 dated  8th June, 1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code  of  Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the XVTH Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad  taking cognizance was rejected.         We may notice that a complaint was filed by the respondent before the Metropolitan  Magistrate complaining that when he had  gone to the chambers of the appellant, he had  addressed him and his father in abusive language in the presence of several persons.  We nee d  not reproduce the words used but it is clear to us on a reading of the complaint that the wo rds  used are defamatory per se, particularly, when a vice-president of the Income tax appellate  tribunal is said to have addressed those words to a practicing lawyer  and to the   father o f the  complainant, who was also a member of the Income tax appellate tribunal.         It is argued before us that  cognizance taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate of an  offence under Sections 499 and 503 IPC is not warranted, and in any event, before taking  cognizance the Magistrate ought to have referred the matter to the police under Section 156( 3) of  the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation by the police.   We are not impressed by th e  argument.  The magistrate after examining the complaintant on oath came to the conclusion,  prima facie, that an offence was made out.   We find no fault with the Metropolitan Magistra te  so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned.  Moreover, since the Magistrate has exerci sed his  power to take cognizance, the same cannot be faulted on the ground that he had not referred  the  matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal  Procedu re.  It  was submitted before that the imputations are mainly against the father of the complainant a nd,  therefore, a complaint ought to have been made by the father of the complainant.  Reference  was  made to provisions of Section 199 of Cr.P.C.  On perusal of the complaint, we find that simi lar  defamatory words were used against the complainant also apart from his father and, therefore ,  the right of the complainant to move the court and lodge a complaint before the competent  magistrate cannot be challenged.         In the result, we  find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed .