URMILA MISHRA Vs. BHOLANATH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2.8.2002, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna, refused to take cognizance against respondents No. 1 to 31, on petitioner's complaint filed for offences punishable under sections 500, 504, 469, 120 -B, 109, 292 read with section 34 of the IPC and the petitioner's challenge to aforesaid order in C.R. No. 9870/2002 also stood negatived by S.J. Satna, on 10.12.2002, therefore, the petitioner, now seeks exercise of inherent powers for quashment of both the aforesaid orders and a direction that cognizance may be taken against non -applicants No. 1 to 45 also.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is Brahmin by caste commanding respect in different classes of society and is Government servant in Ayurvedic Hospital, Satna. On her report registered as crime No. 437/2000 dt. 14.7.2000 non -applicants No. 1 and 2 are being prosecuted for offences punishable under section 451, 294, 293 and 506 -B of the IPC in respect of incident dated 14.7.2000. When the attempts made by non -applicants No. 1 and 2, for withdrawal of prosecution remained unsuccessful, then since 15th of July, 2000 to 3rd of August, 2000 with intent to save themselves from aforesaid prosecution, non -applicant No. 1 and 2 conspired to publicly defame the complainant and called the meeting oi non -applicant No. 3 to 31, at their residance. As outcome of this meeting, non -applicant No. 1 to 31 in connivance with each other concocted one application to be given to S.P. Satna and one for being given by women. One memo all of them prepared for publication in paper. Then non -applicant No. 1 submitted all the aforesaid papers alongwith two to S.P. Satna. Thereafter, non -applicant No. 3, (para 5) page 18, handed over concocted application to S.P. Satna and non -applicant No. 1 gave one memo to non -applicant No. 32 to 35 for publication in paper Dainik Bhaskar, who published it in issue of 2.8.2000. Thus, non -applicant No. 32 to 35 projected complaint, a woman of bad character and wife of Shri Brij Bhushan Shukla at falsely.

(3.) IT would be useful to reproduce the application handed over to the S.P. by respondent No. 1 marked A -4, the memo given to S.P. by respondent No. 1 to 31 marked A -5, memo handed over by women marked A -6 and the news published in Dainik Bhaskar marked A -7, which are as under :