Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings pending as Complaint titled, "Mrs. Kirti Sharma and ors. Vs. Bansi Lal Gupta" in the Court of City Judge, Jammu under Section 500 RPC including all the orders passed therein, as being totally illegal, without jurisdiction and an abuse of the process of Court.

2. In this petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is the Editor-in-

Chief/Proprietor of English Daily "Early Times", Jammu. He was summoned after taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class (City Judge), Jammu in the Complaint. He appeared before the learned Trial Court and had tried to convince the Trial Court that, by reading of the Complaint and the statement of complainants and their witnesses recorded therein, no offence was made out under Section 500 RPC. It was also pleaded before the Trial Court that the complainants were not and could not be deemed to be aggrieved persons, as such, could not start the criminal prosecution. It had been further pleaded before the Trial Court that only because of rivalry; a Complaint had been made when there was never any factual nor any legal ground for the same. In fact, an application had been filed, requesting the Trial Court to drop the proceedings and dismiss the application. This application was dismissed vide order (Annexure-A) dated 15th December, 2008 by the Trial Court. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the Complaint (Annexure-B), as has been furnished to him, when he entered appearance before the Trial Court. A copy of the news item, which has been annexed by the complainants/respondents herein with their Complaint is also filed herewith as Annexure-C.

Since complainants by their own showing can never be deemed to be the aggrieved persons, as such, the Complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon are void, illegal and an abuse of the process of Court. On this ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(b) Even in the cases of defamatory imputation against a collection of persons, unless the same would fall within explanation 2 of Section 499 RPC, it cannot be defamation. It would also be clear that explanation speaks of a collection of persons, as capable of being defamed. When such collection of persons must be definite and a determinate body so that the imputations in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. The news item, which was made into basis of launching prosecution, admittedly, did not name anyone nor was the news item capable of being presented as a news item identifying any group or its constituents. Care had been taken and as was expected of a publication that nothing was done, that could go against the high standards of professional duties and the commitments, which go with freedom of Press. As this Hon'ble Court would find not only in the Complaint, but also the statements recorded contrary to the intent and content of the news item. Suppositions had been taken recourse to with the intention of launching a wholly arbitrary and a void prosecution. The news item was not in any way capable of being made into a cause for launching the prosecution even by reference to Section 499 RPC Explanation 2 of RPC. The allegations made by the complainants and the statements recorded in support of the Complaint itself, would indicate that the class they were trying to project was indeterminate and indefinite and not a definite one. In fact, there was nothing, which could have been read in the news item, as relating to any definite class. The proceedings having been commenced and being carried without the sanction of law, as such is an abuse of the process of the Court.

(c) If only the Trial Court would have read and appreciated the Complaint and the statements made in support thereof, keeping in views the provisions of law contained in Sections 499 and 500 RPC, particularly, in the background of all important facts of the news item neither referring anyone by name nor it containing anything that could even suggest that the news item was referable to any determinate and identifiable body. Petitioner pleads that the Hon'ble Trial Court itself, would have come to a conclusion that he Complaint could neither have been lodged nor the proceedings commenced by the complainants, as they were and could not be deemed to be aggrieved persons. Criticism of the public officers (Police Officers in this case) in not taking action or their failure to take action could never be made into a Complaint for defamation. Petitioner pleads that viewed from any angle, the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court and have been initiated contrary of the position of law and the facts, as also is the result of a rivalry against the petitioner and thus, an abuse of the process Hon'ble Court.

In these circumstances and for the reasons set out above, we allow these appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the proceedings taken out by the Magistrate on the ground that the respondents complaint was not competent."

14. In view of above law, I do not find any substantial material in the news item in question and in complaint filed by respondent to proceed against the petitioner under Section 500 RPC. But, it is also held here that it is a statutory duty of an Editor of the newspaper not to publish any unambiguous or mysterious news in the paper. News item should be specified based on true facts. Hence, this petition is allowed and all the proceedings in complaint titled Mrs. Kirti Sharma & ors. Vs. Bansi Lal Gupta pending in the Court of learned City Judge Jammu under Section 500 RPC, are set aside and complaint is quashed.