LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-23

TEJ KISHAN SADHU Vs. STATE

Decided On May 02, 2013
Tej Kishan Sadhu Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C in short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Respondent No. 2 herein against the petitioner and many others, for the commission of an offence punishable under section 500/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short). By the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate instead of passing an order on the application filed by the respondents no.2/ complainant under section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning certain documents , ordered for an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C and directed the SHO, PS Tuglak Road to conduct an investigation qua the allegations made in the aforesaid criminal complaint against the accused persons, after coming to the conclusion that the complaint of the respondent No. 2, prima facie, disclosed commission of an offence of defamation.

(3.) The present litigation involves a public spat between a leading Industrial group, Jindal Steel and Power limited on one hand and a Media conglomerate like ZEE on the other , with the former claiming that the Zee group attempted to extort money for airing stories against his company in coal block allocation, and the latter accroaching that Jindal Steel and Power limited with sordid designs tried to defame the respondent no. 2/ Sudhir Chaudhary, Editor, "ZEE NEWS". It is alleged by Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary that the Jindal Steel and Power Limited by ploughing deceitful stories and making false imputations and statements against him in various public forums has tried to denigrate and disrepute his social image. Based on these connotations, legal battle began between the two parties. It appears to be a battle of straggling amour- propre, quenching personal vendetta amidst the garb of divestiture.