SANJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 04.07.2008, as well as the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 83 of 2009, Mahendra Singh and others vs Sanjay Gupta and others, under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC, relating to police station, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed on behalf of the complainants (respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 herein) against two accused persons, including the applicant, in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in respect of offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC. Statement of complainant Mahendra Singh was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Statements of Atar Singh and Dilbagh Singh were recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Atar Singh and Dilbagh Singh were also the complainants in the complaint. After having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC, vide order dated 04.07.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant, who is the Editor / Publisher of the newspaper, in which the news item was published. The other accused, who is the Correspondent of the newspaper, is not the applicant in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) As per complaint, a news item was published in a daily newspaper on 17.05.2008. After reading the news item in the newspaper, prestige of the complainants was lowered in the estimation of their friends, acquaintances and relatives. According to the complainants, the news item published in Hindi Daily 'Dainik Jagran' was per se defamatory. The complainants also suffered financial loss in their business, which was hard to be compensated. Their reputation was tarnished in the society. A notice was sent on behalf of their counsel to the newspaper to contradict the news item published by them, but accused persons refused to receive such notice. Neither the contradiction was published, nor the notice of the complainants was replied by them. Statements of complainants Atar Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Mahendra Singh were complementary to each other. A prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC appear to have been made out on the first blush.