SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. A B SHOREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine applications under section 482 CrPC (new) have been filed by the applicants for quashing the proceedings of different criminal cases pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow u/S. 500 IPC and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. All these cases have arisen on the basis of different complaints filed by Sri. A. B. Shorewal, opposite party. The applicants of these applications are editors, printers and publishers of different newspapers, and also Chairman, Manager, Reporter etc., of different news agencies.

(2.) THE opposite party Sri A. B. Shorewal was formerly employed in the U. P. Police Service as Deputy Supdt., of Police. For some reason or the other he was placed under suspension. A Member of U. P. Legislative Assembly, namely Shri Sarvasukh Singh tabled certain questions in the Assembly eliciting details regarding suspension of the opposite party. While submitting reply to those questions an Hon'ble Minister of the U. P. Government namely, Shri Om Prakash Singh furnished certain informations about the opposite party to the House. One of the informations given by the Hon'ble Minister was that on 30-10-1969 the opp. party was found in suspicious circumstances near Pakistan Embassy. News about those replies given by the Hon'ble Minister were flashed in different newspapers, namely, the Aaj, the Amar Ujala, the National Herald, the Nav Jiwan, the Swatantra Bharat, the Nav Bharat Times and the Pioneer. Information was gathered by the editors, printers, publishers and reporters of those newspapers from news agencies known as Samachar Bharti and Hindustan Samachar.

(3.) SECONDLY, it was argued on behalf of the applicants that taking the allegations of opposite party as they stand, no offence of defamation stands made out against the petitioners. I do not agree with this contention also. In a charge under Section 500 IPC the prosecution has to make out the following ingredients :- 1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person. 2. Such imputation must have been made- (i) by words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (ii) by signs; or (iii) by visible representations. 3. Such imputation must have been with the intention of harming, or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.