BARJINDER SINGH HAMDARD Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH KHANGURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Managing Editor in Daily Ajit (Punjab), a newspaper published at Jalandhar. He had been summoned in a defamation complaint filed by Bhupinder Singh, a Junior Engineer. The petitioner is assailing the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate who has summoned the petitioner and impugns order dated 14.10.2011.

(2.) The complainant was working as a Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. The allegations contained in the complaint are that he was admitted in a private Nursing Home on 18.6.2005. He was discharged three days later and was advised rest up to 26.06.2005. On 18.06.2005, a Lineman had died in an accident. The complainant was not on duty and was hospitalized and was not responsible for the death. The accused is said to have levelled false and defamatory allegations and published a news on 01.07.2005. The allegations against the petitioner (arrayed as accused no.11) are being reproduced verbatim from the complaint. It reads as under:-

(3.) The counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the Managing Editor and not the Editor and even otherwise a fair and accurate reporting was made in the newspaper which squarely falls within the domain/ambit of explanation 4 and explanation of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was an abuse of process of the Court and deserves to be quashed. It was urged that what was reported in newspaper, was not an allegation as would be evident from Annexure P-5 which is true translation of the news which was reported. It was urged that the Junior Engineer was not reporting for duty and a show cause notice/Memo (Annexure P-7) had been sent to him on 24.06.2005 and the Lineman had died earlier regarding which there was a protest rally and the employees were resenting the fact that the Junior Engineer had run away and that fact was verbatim reported in the news and the Junior Engineer was subsequently transferred and this fact was included in the news item. It was urged that the news was given on 30.06.2005 and was printed in the newspaper, the next day and whatever was reported was factually also correct. It was urged that the petitioner was not the Editor and Annexure P-10 would show that Harjinder Singh and Smt. Parkash Kaur were the Publishers and Secretary and responsible for the news published and a declaration Annexure P-11 was made under Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act XXV of 1867. It was urged that under the law it is the Editor who goes through the various columns and there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner was responsible for going through the material which was to be published and the complaint and the summoning order qua the petitioner be quashed. Reliance was placed upon Vineet Jain, Arindam Sen Gupta and others Vs. State NCT of Delhi and others, 2013 6 RCR(Cri) 1324 , N. Ram, Vs. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Haryana, 2012 3 RCR(Cri) 161 , Virendrabhai M. Chandalia and another Vs. Mohan Kanayalal Parwani and another, 2003 4 RCR(Cri) 787 , Aroon Purie and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007 4 RCR(Cri) 6 , Prabhu Chawla and others Vs. A.U. Sheriff, 1995 1 RCR(Cri) 600 , Girish Sandhi Vs. State of A.P.,2002 4 CurCriR 422 , K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala, 1992 1 RCR(Cri) 232 and Jawaharlal Darda and others Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar, 1998 4 SCC 112 .