MEHBOOB MUKTER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All above petitioners have challenged the same criminal proceeding pertaining to CR Case No. 561/16 U/S 501/502/120 IPC pending before the learned JMFC, Morigaon by way of filing the present petitions U/S 482 CrPC and prayed for quashing the aforesaid proceedings. As such both the petitions are taken up together for disposal by way of this common order.

(2.) The petitioner namely Mehboob Mukter is the local correspondent of the Assamese vernacular newspaper namely, Asomiya Protidin and other petitioners Nitya Bora and Jajtin Choudhury are Editor and publisher of the said newspaper. The respondent Md. Abul Hussain lodged a complaint on 21.7.2016 before the learned CJM, Morigaon bringing allegation of defamation against the petitioners for publication of the news item in the said newspaper, Asomia Pratidin dated 6.7.2016. It was alleged in the complaint petition that his settlement has been stopped due to publication of news item in the newspaper which is not based on records.

(3.) According to the petitioners, on the basis of a WT Message dated 5.7.2016 communicated by the Chief Executive Officer,(CEO), Morigaon Zila Parishad the opposite party / complainant was not allowed to take over the possession of the Moirabari bi-weekly market. On the basis of materials available on record and the WT message dated 5.7.2016 the local correspondent/ petitioner Mehboob Mukter prepared a news item in the evening of 5.7.16 and forwarded the same for publication and accordingly the news item was published on 6.7.2016. Thereafter the opposite party lodged the complaint with the allegation that due to publication of the news item his settlement has been stopped by the authority. The petitioners state that the CEO, Morigaon Zila Parishad vide order dated 2.7.2016 offered the settlement of Moirabari bi-weekly market to opposite party and accordingly he was asked to complete the formalities for taking over the possession of the market. Lateron Circle Officer, Laharighat Revenue Circle communicated a Whatsapp message on 4.7.16 to the CEO, Morigaon Zila Parishad intimating that the land valuation certificate has been issued wrongly by the Laharighat revenue circle in favour of the person who stood as guarantor of Babul Hussain. Thereafter the CEO, Morigaon Zila Parishad communicated a WT Meesage on 5.7.16 intimating all concerned that the settlement process of Moirabari bi-weekly market has been kept in abeyance. The petitioners further submit that the complaint lodged by the opposite party that his settlement has been stopped due to the publication of the news items is not based on records as because settlement was stopped on 5.6.16 and the news item was published on 6.7.16. Therefore, the publication of the news could not influence the authority in the settlement process as alleged in the complaint petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that the news item was published basing on materials on record and on the basis of WT Message dated 5.7.16 and therefore no criminal liability can be attributed to the accused petitioners and the above criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.