SHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINHA Vs. RAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Though the respondents were duly served and on an occasion appeared in person, subsequently they did not appear. Resultantly, we requested Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate of the Bar to assist the court as amicus curiae. We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by him.

(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High court of Bombay made on 21/1/1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1990. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case and we proceed on the basis thereof are that allegations were made in the complaint filed by the respondents in the courts of Magistrate at Pune and Nasik; we deal with those allegations as they constitute offence for which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, could take cognizance. In paragraph 2 it is narrated that the complainant-respondent was a social activist belonging to the Marwari community, and that the respondent-second accused respectively is the editor and publisher of Stardust, Film Magazine. An interview she had with the appellant in June 1989 came to be published at page 82 of that magazine. During the course of the interview, the appellant was alleged to have made statements outraging the religious feeling of the Marwari community and also defamed the members of Marwari community as a class. In the complaint filed at Pune, what he has stated is as under: