SHEKHAR BHATIYA Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 336/2007 Dinesh vs. Shekhar & Ors. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bhilwara for the offence under c Bhihvara for the offence Section 500 IPC. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Dinesh Kumar Pareek filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bhilwara against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that a news article was published in Hindustan Times, Jaipur Edition on 29.11.2005 the caption whereof was "Corrupt Manager that the respondent No. 1 Dinesh Kumar Pareek being to Assistant Manager in the R.F.C. was convicted by the Special Court at Udaipur and was sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. . 1000/-.

(2.) The complainant filed the complaint with the specific allegation that the news article referred to in the complaint was published in the daily news paper Hindustan Times Jaipur Edition was defamatory and false. It was alleged that Shekhar Bhatia being its Editor, Rakesh Sharma, being the Printer and Publisher as well as the manager of the Surya Offset Printer were responsible for printing the defamatory news article in their news paper mentioning therein that the complainant was convicted by the Special Court whereas the fact of the matter was that at the conclusion of the trial of Cr Case No. 146/1997 the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) Udaipur vide judgment dated 8.11.2005, had acquitted the complainant. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed the relevant page of the news paper wherein the news item was published, the notice issued to the accused demanding damages from them towards loss of reputation and the copy of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) Udaipur. The complainant examined himself and one Som Dutt Sharma in support of the complaint. Thereafter the learned Magistrate by a detailed order dated 16.6.2007 directed issuance of process against the petitioners herein. The aforesaid order dated 16.6.2007 issuing process has been challenged by the petitioners by way of the instant miscellaneous petition.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant, in support of his evidence has filed only one page of the news paper and a bare perusal thereof does not prima facie establish that the petitioners herein are the editor and printer or publisher respectively of the news paper in relation whereto the complaint has been filed. He submits that there is no averment in the complaint that either of the petitioners was responsible for printing of the news item. He thus contends that the order issuing process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate amounts to a gross abuse of the process of Court. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew vs. K.A. Abraham, 2002 6 SCC 670 and urges that the order impugned and all the proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.