MASOODUL HUQ Vs. UMAKANTA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is a journalist and an editorial staff of the magazine 'Sunday'. Petitioner No. 2 is the Editor; petitioner No. 3 is a Manager and petitioner No. 4 is the publisher of the said magazine 'Sunday'. In this revision petition, all of them have prayed to quash the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under section 500, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The offending article was published in the magazine 'Sunday' dated September, 12-18, 1982 under the caption "How' honourable' is the Orissa Speaker?" at page 25 of the said issue. The complainant is the son-in-law of the then Speaker and in the complaint petition (annexed as Annexure-2 to the revision petition), portions of the article which are defematory so far as the complainant is concerned have been enumerated in paragraphs IV and V of the said complaint petition. Mr. Mohanty for the petitioners contends that the portions extracted in the complaint petition do not make out the offence of defamation particularly when same amount of fair comment on a matter of public interest in respect of a person who holds a public office is permissible in law. According to Mr. Mohanty, in the article in question nothing has been stated against the complainant who happens to be the son-in-law of the then Speaker, so as to constitute prima facie an offence under section 500, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate should be quashed and continuance of the proceeding must be held to be an abuse of the process of law. Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party, however, contends that the insinuations made against the complainant were grossly defamatory and are the outcome of a deliberate attempt to destroy the position and status of the complainant in the public estimation and at this stage it is not permissible to delve into an enquiry as to whether the said insinuations would come within the ambit of 'fair comment', as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Whether the impugned publication is defamatory or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial and it is not permissible for this court at this stage to quash the cognizance since prima facie the article is defamatory in nature. The rival contentions require careful consideration.

(3.) The law on the subject has been elaborately discussed in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Radhanath Rath v. Balakrishna Swain (1985) 59 Cut LT 226. In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the learned Judge has held : -