Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Saptahik Chand Par Udaan ... vs Mohammed Sultan Sheikh @ Babbu on 13 February, 2017

                         MCRC-8622-2016
   (SAPTAHIK CHAND PAR UDAAN THRU.MOHD.SHAHRUKH QURESHI Vs MOHAMMED
                         SULTAN SHEIKH @ BABBU)


13-02-2017

Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicants.

      Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of Cri.Case No.23561/2015 registered on the private complaint against the applicant under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Indore to take cognizance against the respondent under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC averting that applicant No.2 is the Chief Editor of weekly newspaper applicant no.1 “Chand Par Udan”and applicant No.3 is the Guardian of the newspaper. The applicants have published the news against the respondent that he is involved in many cases. Because of that respondent defamed. So action be taken against the applicants. On that complaint learned trial Court took cognizance against applicants and summoned them and and by order dated 11.7.2016 framed charge against him under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have published the news bonafidely. So their act comes under the exception of Section 499 of IPC. Learned trial Court wrongly took cognizance against the applicants. Therefore, the private complaint be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no provision in summons trial to discharge the applicants from the charge during trial. He also submitted that burden of proving applicants' act comes under the exception, is a matter of evidence. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that applicants' act comes under exceptions of Section 499 of IPC.

This court gone through the record and argument put forth by the parties according to provisions of section 105 of evidence act The burden of proving that applicants' act comes under exception is on applicants. Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act reads as thus :-

“ 105. Burden of providing fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.- When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.” So at this stage only on the document produced by the applicants along with our petition it can not be assume that applicants' act comes under the exception, which will decide by the trial court after recording the evidence in the case. Hence the petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE