Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ruparam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 16 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19268 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. RUPARAM S/O SHRI GANPATRAM GOYAL, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JHONAL HEAD
PATRIKA PATRIKA OFFICE 6TH FLOOR RNT
MARG CENTRAL MOL INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AMIT S/O SHRI PURSHOTTAM MANDLOI, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PATRAKARITA
(STHANIYA SAMPADAK) PATRIKA OFFICE, 6TH
FLOOR, R.N.T.MARG, CENTRAL MALL, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JINESHKUMAR S/O PHOOLCHAND JI JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PATRAKARITA
(RAJYA SAMPADAK) PATRIKA OFFICE 6TH FLOOR
RNT MARG CENTRAL MOL INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. KRISHNAPALSINGH S/O SHRI ANIIRUDHASINGH
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PATRAKARITA (STHANIYA
PATRAKAR) PATRIKA OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR,
R.N.T.MARG, CENTRAL MALL, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI C.L. YADAV, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
SHYAM SINGH THAKUR, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THR.PS. CHHOTI GWALTOLI
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2023.03.17 2. KUMARI BINDU D/O SHRI C. L. BADAL 201, SAGAR
APARTMENT, PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA
10:28:43 IST
PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GOVIND RAI PUROHIT, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE) (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicants are Editors of daily news 'Patrika'. The allegation against the applicants is that they had disclosed the identity of a minor girl victim of kidnap and rape in the newspaper. On an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate directed the police to make investigation.
Counsel for the State submits that after the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Competent Court of law for commission of offences under Section 228-A of IPC and Section 23(4) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 74 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Counsel for the applicants submits that the incident is dated 26.10.2018 and in the newspaper belonging to the applicants, the identity is said to have been disclosed on 09.04.2019. It is argued that prior to publication of the identity of the prosecutrix in the newspaper of the applicants, the identity was already disclosed in other print media.
Counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid submissions cannot be appreciated at this stage as it is a matter of evidence. He further submits that the charge is yet to be framed by the competent Court of law and all the submissions can be raised at the time of framing of the charge.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that as per the directions of the Magistrate, the investigation has been completed Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The submissions raised by counsel SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2023.03.17 10:28:43 IST for the applicant needs to be appreciated through evidence which cannot be 3 done in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage. However, it would be open for the applicants to raise all the submissions at the time of framing of the charge.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2023.03.17
10:28:43 IST