Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Chawla vs State Of U.P. on 2 January, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7566 of 2006 Applicant :- Prabhu Chawla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Satish Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Haji S Kamal Akhtar Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate, for applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for respondent-1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent-2 though name of Sri Haji S. Kamal Akhtar, Advocate, has been shown in the cause list and the case has been called in revise. In the circumstances, I proceed to hear and decide this case finally after hearing learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. Applicant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 8157 of 2004 (Amar Singh Vs. Prabhu Chawla) under Section 500 I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
3. A news item was published in India Today Magazine dated 08.09.2004 with the title "Khari Baat Ki Rajniti". The relevant extract of news item reads as under:
^^muds fy, cksyuk egt ,d dyk gS] blhfy, tc dHkh eksgEen vkte [kku jkeiqjh tcku ls dqN cksyrs gS rks fookn mB [kMk gksrk gS vkSj os Bhd mlh rjg eqLdjkrs gSa tSls dksbZ dykdkj viuh dyk ij nwljksa dks my>u esa iM+k ns[kdj eqLdjkrk gS] iwfN, fd ^^vkidh gj ckr ij fookn D;ksa gksrk gS\** os vius v/k&dVs p'es dks ukd ij ljdkdj dgrs gSa] ^^blfy, fd vkte [kku ckr [kjh dgrk gS] lp ipkuk eqf'dy gksrk gS u\** ;kuh mRrj izns'k ljdkj dh izFke iafDr esa igqaps vkSj 'kgjh fodkl tSlk egRoiw.kZ foHkkx laHkky jgs [kku [kqn gh QSlyk dj ysrs gSa fd os tks dgrs gSa ^[kjh ckr* rks gksrh gS] ogh lp Hkh gksrh gSA ^[kjh dgus* ds blh vankt ds dkj.k [kku fujarj fooknksa esa gS vkSj bUgha dkj.kksa ls jkeiqj dh iwoZ lkaln csxe uwjckuksa mUgsa ^udkjkRed lksp okyk O;fDr* djkj nsrh gSa] ij eq[;ea=h eqyk;e flag ;kno ,slk ugha ekurs] ^^dksbZ lkfcr dj ns fd [kku bZekunkj vkSj fo}ku ugha gSa rks eSa [kqn mUgsa gVk nwaxk]** 56 o"khZ; [kku ds vanj vkt Hkh vyhx<+ eqfLye fo'ofo|ky; ds vkx mxyrs iqjkus Nk= usrk dh fpuxkjh vkSj jkeiqjh Nqjh tSlh rsth Nqih gS] ml ij lektoknh jax p<+s rks og jktuhfr esa vkSj Hkh [krjukd gks tkrk gSA mudk fl;klh lQj Hkh lektoknh czkaM ds nyksa&turk ikVhZ] yksdny] turk ny vkSj lektoknh ikVhZ rd lhfer jgkA yxkrkj fo/kk;d pqus tkrs [kku ,d ckj fo/kkulHkk esa foi{k ds usrk jgs] ,d ckj jkT;lHkk esa igqaps vkSj vc rhljh ckj ea=h gSA blhfy, fiNys fnuksa jkeiqj ls ysdj y[kuÅ vkSj okjk.klh rd [kku v[kckjksa dh lqf[kZ;ksa esa jgsA gky gh esa muds x`g {ks= jkeiqj esa ,d coky gks x;kA 'kgj esa uokcksa dh fu'kkuh jgk dksbZ 225 lky iqjkuk ,sfrgkfld ^fnYyh njoktk* /oLr gks x;kA iwoZ dkaxzslh lkaln vkSj uokc tqfYQdkj vyh [kku dh fo/kok csxe uwjckuksa us [kqysvke vkjksi yxk;k fd vkte [kku jktuSfrd }s"k ds dkj.k ;kstukc) rjhds ls jkeiqj ds 'kkgh [kkunku ds fu'kkuksa dks feVkus ds vykok 1775 esa 'kkgh fj;klr ds laLFkkid uokc QstqYykg [kku ds lkjs Lekjd [kRe dj jgs gSa vkSj ftyk iz'kklu ea=h ds b'kkjksa ij ukp jgk gSA [kku rks pqi jgs] exj vf/kdkfj;ksa us lQkbZ nh fd ^fnYyh njoktk* [kqn gh [kLrkgky esa Fkk ftls gVkdj lM+d pkSMh dh tkuh Fkh] ;g Hkh dgk tk jgk gS fd mls gVkdj [kku ogkWa ckc&,&bYe ¼Kku dk }kj½ cuokuk pkgrs gSa] iqjkuk njoktk njvly :gsy okLrqdyk dk uewuk Fkk vkSj bls ykus okys vQxkfuLrku ls vk, Fks] ftuls uokc [kkunku tqM+k gqvk gSA fopfyr gksdj csxe uwjckuksa us dgk fd mudh lwpuk ds vuqlkj fnYyh njokts ds ckn vc [kku ds fu'kkus ij jkeiqj [kkunku dh nks fu'kkfu;ka&'kkgckn vkSj uokc njoktk gSA bl ^lkft'k* dk jkeiqj ckj ,lksfl,'ku] :gsy Lekjd lekt vkSj :gsy lkaLd`frd laLFkk tSls dqN LFkkuh; laxBu Hkh fojks/k djus yxs gSaA ekeyk Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k vkSj jkT;iky Vh-oh- jkts'oj rd igqapk gSA exj [kku ds leFkZd ogka ^lkft'k* ls budkj djrs gSa vkSj dgsrs gSa fd ;fn jkeiqj [kkunku dks fnYyh njokts ls yxko Fkk rks mUgksaus mldh ns[kHkky d;ksa ugha dhA ,slk gksrk rks njoktk [kqn&c&[kqn fxjrk gh ughaA** "For him, delivering a speech is merely an art; hence, whenever Mohammad Azam says something in his Rampuri dialect, a dispute erupts; and he smiles in such a way as an artiste tends to smile, finding others confused over his piece of art. Ask him, "Why does every word uttered by you cause dispute?", he would, lowering his goggles on his nose, say, "Because Azam Khan speaks in a straight forward manner; and it is always hard to digest the truth". It means Khan, who has reached the first row of the Uttar Pradesh Government, and who is handling an important department like Urban Development, decides himself as to whatever he says is straight forward and the same is true as well.
Because of this style of his making a statement in straight forward manner, Khan is continuously in dispute and for the same reasons, former MP from Rampur, Begum Noorbano, terms him as person of 'negative thoughts'; but Mulayam Singh Yadav does not think so. According to him, "If anyone proves that Khan is not an honest or a learned person, I myself will remove him". The 56-year-old Khan still has the spark of a former student leader of Aligarh Muslim University, who would make incendiary speeches, and who also has the sharpness of a razor-sharp-Rampuri knife, and when all these things combine with Samajwadi (socialists) colour, a politician gets even more dangerous in politics. His political career too is limited to some political parties of the Samajwadi (socialist) brand such as: Janta Party, Lok Dal, Janta Dal and Samajwadi Party. Being continuously elected as MLA, Khan has been once the leader of opposition in the assembly and once a member of Rajya Sabha; and he has now become a minister for the third time.
For these very reasons, Khan has recently been in the headlines of the newspapers from Rampur to Lucknow and upto Varanasi. Recently, a dispute in his home town Rampur broke out. Around 225-year-old-historical Delhi Darwaza, which has been a relic of the Nawabs of the city, was destroyed. Former Congress MP and widow of Nawab Zulfiqar Khan, Begum Noorbano, made open allegations that Azam Khan, due to political differences, is eliminating in a planned manner all the relics of the founder Nawab Fazullah Khan of Shahi riyasat (royal state) established in 1775, apart from destroying other signs of the royal family. The district administration is dancing to the tune played by the minister.
Khan remained silent but the officers put forth their defence, saying that ''Delhi Darwaza' was itself in a bad condition and was proposed to be removed for widening of the road. It is also being said that Khan wants to construct the Bab-e-Ilm (Door of knowledge) replacing the former. Old door was, in fact, a specimen of the Rohil Architecture and was brought from the Afghanistan the Nawab family is associated with. Being perturbed Begum Noor Bano stated that as per her information, after Delhi Darwaja, two relics of the Rampur Royalty - Shahbad and Nawab Darwaja are on Khan's target.
This 'conspiracy' is also being opposed by some local organisations such as Rampur Bar Association, Rohail Smarak Samaj and Rohail Cultural Organization. The matter has gone over to the Archaeological Survey of India and the Governor Sri T. V. Rajeshwar. But Khan's followers reject this conspiracy, saying that if Rampur Family had attachment for the Delhi Darwaza, why did they not maintain it? Had it been the case, the door would have not fallen itself."
(English Translation by Court)
4. Respondent-2 filed aforesaid complaint contents whereof read as under:
1- ;g fd ifjoknh ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj m0iz0 dk lEekfur lnL; gS ,oa la;qDr lfpo ds in ij gSA rFkk foi{kh bf.M;k VqMs if=dk dk lEiknd gS tks fd mijksDr irs ls izdkf'kr gksrh gSA 2- ;g fd bf.M;k VqMs ds 8 uoEcj ds vad esa i`"V la0 42 o 43 ij [kjh ckr dh jktuhfr ^^'kh"kZd ls lEiknd }kjk ys[k izdkf'kr fd;k x;k mlesa i`"B la0 43 ds nwljs iSjk dh izFke iafDr esa fy[kk gS** bl lkft'k dk jkeiqj ckj ,lksfl,'ku tSls LFkkuh; laxBu fojks/k djus yxs gSa tks fd v{kj'k% >wB okLrfodrk ds foijhr rFkk nqHkkZouk iwoZd lkftlu fy[kk x;k gSA ftlls iwjs ns'k esa ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh xkSjo'kkyh ,drk xfjek @[;kfr o vjktuSfrd Nfo dks viw.kZuh; {kfr o vk/kkr igqWapk gSA 3- ;g fd ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ,d vjktuSfrd laLFkk gS tks fd vf/koDrkvksa ds fgrksa dh j{kk djrh gS rFkk vf/koDrkvksa ds mRFkku ds fy;s dk;Z djrh gS rFkk lekt o jk"Vª dh lsok esa lnSo rRij gS] ysfdu foi{kh }kjk tkucw>dj uktk;t mn~ns';ksa dh iwfr ds fy;s ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dks cnuke djus dh fu;r ls lkft'k dk fojks/k tSlk fujk/kkj ykaNu dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS] ftlls ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh e;kZnk dk guu foi{kh us viuh if=dk esa ys[k ds ek/;e ls fd;k gSA 4- ;g fd ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj esa Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ] dkaxszl] lektoknh ikVhZ] cgqtu lekt ikVhZ] jk"V~h; turkaf=d rFkk dbZ vU; jktuSfrd nyksa ds leFkZd vf/koDrk ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ds lEekfur lnL; gSa rFkk ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ds lafo/kku esa ,der ls vkLFkk o fo'okl j[krs gSa rFkk ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ds fu;eksa dk ikyu djrs gSa] ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj fdlh Hkh jktuSfrd ny dk leFkZu ;k fojks/k ugha djrh gS u gh fdlh jktuSfrd lkftl dk fojks/k ;k leFkZu fd;k gS ugha fdlh ds fojks/k ;k leFkZu ds fy;s dHkh dksbZ izLrko ckj ,lksfl,'ku ds lnu ds le{k j[kk x;k gSA foi{kh }kjk diksy dfYir rF;ksa dks vk/kkj cukdj fdlh jktuSfrd ny dks jktuSfrd ykHk igqapkus dh fu;r o uhfr ls bl ys[k ds ek/;e ls ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ds lEekfur vf/koDrk lnL;ksa ds e/; oSeuL; iSnk djus dk d`R;@ vijk/k fd;k gS ftlls ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh ,drk xfjek fo'okluh;rk e;kZnk o [;kfr dks viw.kZuh; {kfr igqaph gS rFkk iwjh nqfu;k esa ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh ekugkfu foi{kh }kjk dh x;h gSA 5- ;g fd ifjoknh ds bl ys[k ls O;fFkr gksdj foi{kh dks ,d uksfVl iathd`r Mkd ls bl vk'k; ls izsf"kr djk;k fd vkids ys[k ds ek/;e ls ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh Nfo o [;kfr dks vk?kkr o Bsal igqaph gS rFkk ekugkfu gq;h gSA vki vius vfxze ys[k esa ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj ds lnL;ksa ls bl d`R; ls ekQh ekax ys cfYd foi{kh us ,slk ugha fd;k cfYd vius vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls uksfVl dk tcko izsf"kr djok;kA ftlesa foi{kh us bl ys[k dks lgh Bgjk;k rFkk ekQh ekaxus ls lkQ badkj fd;k gS] ftlls foi{kh dh uhfr o fu;er Li"Vr% nqHkkZoukiw.kZ o ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh ekugkfu tkucw>dj djus dh gSA ftlls etcwj o O;fFkr gksdj rFkk bl ykaNu ls vkgr gksdj U;k;ky; ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr djds U;k; dh ekax ifjoknh dks djuh iM+h gS uksfVl ifjoknh o tckc foi{kh o bf.M;k VqMs dh izfr ifjokn ds lkFk layXu gSA 6- ;g fd ,slh fLFkfr esa ckj ,lksfl,'ku jkeiqj dh ekugkfu djus o [;kfr dks Bsl igqWapkus ds fy;s rFkk ckj ds lnL;ksa dh Hkkoukvksa dks vkgr o O;fFkr djus ds fy;s rFkk laxBu dks [kf.Mr djus dh nqHkkZouk iw.kZ uhfr ds rgr [kjh ckr dh jktuhfr ys[k izdkf'kr djus ds vijk/k@ d`R; ds fy;s foi{kh dks nf.Mr fd;k tkuk U;k; fgr esa vfr vko';d gSA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd foi{kh dks ryc Qjekdj nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djsaA** "1. That the complainant is a respected member of the Bar Association, Rampur, U.P. and holds the post of Joint Secretary. The opposite party is the Editor of India Today magazine which is published from the aforesaid address.
2 . That an editorial ''Khari Baat ki Rajneeti' was published on page nos 42 and 43 of 08 November issue of the India Today, in first line of second para of page no 43 whereof it is mentioned: "The local organizations such as Rampur Bar Association have started opposing this conspiracy". This is patently false, contrary to reality and is written with malafide intentions which has caused irreparable loss and damage to the glorious history of unity/dignity/reputation, and the non-political image, of the Bar Association, Rampur.
3 . That the Bar Association, Rampur is a non political organization which safeguards the interests of the advocates and works for their upliftment, and is always willing to serve the society and nation. But the opposite party, for fulfilment of their illegitimate objectives and with an intent to defame the Bar Association, Rampur, has willfully levelled baseless allegation like opposing the conspiracy; the opposite party has thus undermined the Bar Association, Rampur by way of this article in his magazine.
4. That the supporters of Bhartiya Janta Party, Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Rashtriya Jantantrik and many other political parties are in the Bar Association, Rampur as its respected members. They have a common trust and belief in the constitution of the Bar Association, Rampur and abide by its rules. The Bar Association, Rampur does not support or oppose any political party nor has it opposed or supported any political conspiracy nor has any proposal in support or opposition of anybody ever been presented before its house. By way of the present article, an act/offence of creating enmity between the respected advocate-members of the Bar Association, Rampur has been done by the opposite party on the basis of fictitious facts with an intent and policy to politically benefit some political party, which has caused irreparable damages to the unity, dignity, reliability, image and reputation of the Bar Association, Rampur, and it has been defamed by the opposite party all the world over.
5. That the complainant, aggrieved by this article, sent a notice to the opposite party through registered post, alleging that his such article has undermined the image and reputation of the Bar Association, Rampur and has exposed it to defamation, and asking him to offer apology to the members of the Bar Association, Rampur in the next article. The opposite party, however, did not do so; rather, sent a reply to the said notice through counsel, in which the opposite party defended the said article and flatly refused to offer any apology, which goes to establish the malicious intent and policy of the opposite party to intentionally defame the Bar Association, Rampur. Aggrieved by this, the complainant had to seek justice by filing a complaint before the court. The notice of the complainant, its reply by the opposite party and a copy of India Today is enclosed with the complaint.
6. That in such a situation, it is expedient in the interest of justice to punish the opposite party for publishing a political article with a malicious intent to defame and undermine the Bar Association, Rampur, to hurt the feelings of its members and to disintegrate the organisation.
Hence, it is prayed that the opposite party be summoned and punished." (English Translation by Court)
5. Section 499 IPC provides as to what is "defamation" and reads as under:-
"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."
6. There are four Explanations and ten Exceptions in Section 499 IPC which I had not quoted.
7. Explanations covers some shades of the words, spoken or intended to be read etc., which may amount to "defamation" while exceptions give the illustrations of what will not constitute "defamation". To be more particular, Explanations-1, 2 and 3 provide certain aspects which would amount to defamation and Explanation-4 explains the words "will harm the reputation of such person" which is a necessary and integral part of Section 499 IPC so as to constitute defamation. Offence of defamation, therefore, consists of three essential ingredients. (i) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person; (ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations; and, (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
8. Thus, to bring an offence under Section 500 IPC, prosecution has to show, (a) that an imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or intended to be read or made by signs or by visible representations; (b) that the imputation concerned the complainant, i.e., the person defamed and the person who has come forward qua complainant alleging that defamation concerned him, are identical persons; (c) that the accused made or published the incriminating imputation; and, (d) that the intention behind making and publishing words causing harm to the reputation of such person.
9. Offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, therefore, is to protect a fundamental right of a person i.e. 'reputation' which is part of right to enjoyment of life and liberty and property having an ancient origin as explained by Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another 1989 (1) SCC 494 wherein Court reproduced the observations from D.F. Marion v. Davis 10 55 ALR 171 as under:-
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. " (emphasis added)
10. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others (1983) 1 SCC 124, Court said that "right to reputation" is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.
11. In Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (6) SCALE 190, Court dealt with the aspect of "reputation" though in a different context, and said:-
"........reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. " (emphasis added)
12. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2013 (2) SCC 398, Court said:-
"The term 'person' includes not only the physical body and members but also every bodily sense and personal attribute among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Reputation can also be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem, and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege of ancient origin and necessary to human society. 'Reputation' is an element of personal security and is protected by Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Although 'character' and 'reputation' are often used synonymously, but these terms are distinguishable. 'Character' is what a man is and 'reputation' is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes possessed and 'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present. " (emphasis added)
13. Offence under Section 500 IPC, therefore, covers a very important aspect involving a person's right to life and liberty, hence when a complaint is made that a person's reputation has been jeopardized, any Magistrate if has taken cognizance in the matter by initiating proceedings, Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution should not interfere lightly unless a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out.
14. Ex-facie an offence of defamation required firstly, a false statement and if a statement itself is not false, one need not go further as to whether such statement has the effect of damaging one's goodwill or reputation or image, inasmuch as, if a statement of fact which is not false is uttered then Section 499 IPC is not attracted at all.
15. In a matter, complaining of offence of defamation, the alleged statement has to be appreciated in a manner which will be read, understood and viewed by right thinking and reasonable minded person of ordinary prudence. The statement has to be read and understood in its entirety and not selectively, in piecemeal, or by adding something which is not there. Natural and ordinary meaning of words would be supplied and what meaning and message it would convey to a man of ordinary prudence is a crucial aspect. Imputation of fraud, dishonesty and corruption in any manner directly attributing to complainant, no doubt, would amount to defamation but every statement which is not liked by complainant himself cannot be said to be a defamatory statement.
16. I have no manner of doubt that while considering the questions, whether an offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC has been committed, and whether Magistrate is justified in issuing process, the exceptions laid down in Section 499 IPC would not be considered since the same are defence available to accused and not to be looked into at the stage of issue of process by Magistrate but he (Magistrate) yet has to examine whether alleged statement, if read, as it is, do satisfy the requirement of "defamation" as defined in Section 499 IPC. It cannot be ignored that different persons react to the same situation differently, had different assessments and judgment of a situation and facts are based on human nature, mindset, approach, intelligentsia and ability of appreciation. Reaction of a reasonable person or right thinking member of society to the words spoken is a relevant consideration to find, whether statement in question amounts to defamation. Section 499 IPC clearly provides that statement of imputation must be with the intent of causing harm or having reason to belief that such imputation will harm reputation of the person about whom it is made. Meaning thereby, the identity of person in respect of whom the statement is made must be clear from the statement itself and not from the inference drawn by the person who claims that in his presence or before him an statement was made.
17. Further, if an inference is drawn by the person claiming that before him the statement was made then first of all it is the person who has drawn inference has to verify that a statement justifying such inference was made and unless such fact is not brought before Court concerned, any other statement of a person would amount to a hearsay and cannot be said to have proved that an offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC has been committed.
18. In the case in hand, a perusal of the complaint shows that applicant is not the Author of article which has been written by one Farzand Ahmad and no complaint has been made against him while applicant is only Editor of Magazine.
19. Secondly, even otherwise, having gone through the entire complaint, I find that ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. are not made out and, therefore, no proceedings under Section 500 I.P.C. can be initiated.
20. In view thereof, the application is allowed. Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 8157 of 2004 under Section 500 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 02.01.2020 PS