RADHANATH RATH Vs. BAHIKRISHANA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) to quash the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code on petition of complaint made by the opposite party, a junior Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Khurda Division, in the district of Pun. An interim order of stay of further proceeding was passed by the Court on October 19, 1984 and notice was issued to the opposite party on the questions of admission and stay.

(2.) Having heard Mr. P. Palit for the petitioners and Mr. B. M. Patnaik for the opposite party and having perused the record of the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, I do not find any prima facie case for interference at this stage by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction and in my view, there is no case for admission. As the learned counsel for both the sides have referred to the facts of the case and some principles of law, I feel myself called upon to briefly give the reasons for my conclusion.

(3.) The petitioner no. 1 is the editor and the petitioner no. 3 is the publisher of Samaja, an Oriya daily newspaper. The petitioner no. 4 is, the editor and the petitioner no. 5 is the publisher of SundayTT. The petitioner no. 2 is a journalist residing at Cuttack. The opposite party has alleged in his petition of complaint and has stated under section 200 of the Code that he has been defamed by the petitioners by publication of news and articles in TTSamaja and Sunday In the weekly magazine Sunday 01-17 March, 1984), published from Calcutta and having wide circulation throughout India, it bad been stated that at the instance of the complainant opposite party, Mr. G. C. Sahu, a Government contractor, supplied and carried materials to village Rameswar for construction of the house of Mr. J.B. Patnaik, the Chief Minister of Orissa and a letter purported to have been written by Mr. Sahu to the opposite party with purported zerox copies of fifteen alleged receipts bad been published. It has also been alleged by the complainant-opposite party that on March 22, 1984, a news item was published at page 4 of TTSamajaT and a letter purported to have been written by Mr. G. C. Sahu addressed to the opposite party was published wherein it had been stated that at the instance of the complainant-opposite, party, Mr. Sahu had supplied building materials worth Rs 28, 032.50 and that he had made payments for labour at the instance of the complainant opposite party and that the latter had assured payment of the amount within 4 to 6 months. Imputation bad been made that the complainant-opposite party had placed orders in exercise 9f his official capacity, as an engineer for the purpose of obtaining illegal benefits Below this purported letter had been written in bold letters that at the instance and under the direction of the complainant opposite party, the house of the Chief Minister was being constructed and that the constructed Mr. Sahu had not been paid the amount of Rs. 28, 000/and odd by the opposite party. According to the, complainant opposite party, be had nothing to do with the construction of the house and the Chief Minister and his wife Mrs. Jayanti Patnaik did note even know him. The statements made in SundayT and SamajaT were false and had been directed to fame him, as alleged by the complainant opposite party. The petitioner Mr. S. P. Nandu had along with Dr. Radhanath Rath and a couple of other persons met Mr. Sahu and had requested him to execute a number of blank papers necessary for the purpose of making representations/memorials for getting the complainant-opposite party transferred from the Khurda sub division and on being so induced Mr. Sahu had executed a number of blank papers and delivered these papers on being fraudulently and, dishonestly induced by the persons who had approached Mr. Sahu. The petitioners, pursuant to their criminal conspiracy, made and fabricated these documents or parts thereof containing false statements of payments by Mr. Sahu intending that such false statement might be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding. Knowing and having reasons to believe that the receipts were forged, the petitioners had fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as genuine in the daily newspaper T1SamajaT and the weekly magazine Sunday. The complainant-opposite party has further stated in his petition of complaint: The accused persons published imputations as aforesaid concerning the complainant intending to harm and knowingly and having reasons to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of complainant. Brother officers close relations and friends are making various enquiries from the complainant about the said alleged receipts and letters published in the, daily Samaj and weekly Sunday. The articles along with the purported letter of Sri Sahu and receipts making imputations against the complainant has directly lowered the complainant in the estimate of others namely his brother officers, subordinates, relations, and friends. The imputations published in the articles ale directly in respect of the calling and profession of this complainant and has been considered generally as disgraceful on the complts part. Accused Radhanath Rath, Udayanath Sarangi, Brppaditya Ray and M. J. Akabar have sold and offered for sale the printed substance containing the aforesaid defamatory, matters throughout the State of Orissa and the whole of India knowing that it contains such defamatory matters. The papers were sold and read in Khurda town and elsewhere. After ascertaining the facts from Mr. Sahu, the complainant-opposite party applied to the higher authorities for permission to proceed against the petitioners and having received such permission, made the petition of complaint, as stated therein. In his statement under sec 200 of the Code, the complainant-opposite party has substantially stated the same facts.