JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Dangi. None present for respondent.The petitioner has preferred this Misc. petition u/s 482. Cr. P.C. against the order dated 20-7-82 passed by the Judi. Magistrate (2), Ajmer, by which he took cognizance under Section 500 and 501, IPC against the petitioner. 2. Dr. Manoj Bhargava filed a complaint u/s 500 and 501, IPC against the petitioner alleging that in the Rajasthan Patrika of 10-5-82 a news was published under the title "Rail Officer Without Ticket". In this news item which has been reproduced in the complaint in para 3, it has been mentioned that in the night of Saturday, Ahmedabad-Delhi Mail was checked by the Railway Magistrate at Jaipur station and in the 1st class compartment he found four persons travelling without ticket. Out of these four persons, two persons were of the Railway Department. In the news item it was further mentioned that in the 1st class compartment six persons were travelling and amongst them four were found without ticket Two were lady passengers and two gent passengers. One lady passenger and one gent passenger is an officer at Railway Hospital. Ajmer and Ahmedabad. The Railway Magistrate released them after taking surety of Rs. 1,000/-. The case of the complainant is that he was travelling in the train and in the 1st Class compartment, as far as he remembers, he was the only officer of the Railway posted at Railway Hospital, Ajmer. It is incorrect that he was travelling without ticket and was caught by the Railway Magistrate. According to the complainant he was travelling with Railway pass. The news which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika relates to him and as it is a false news, the complainant has been defamed and has been lowered down in the eye of public With these allegations, the complaint has been filed. 3. The complainant Dr. Manoj Bhargava examined himself u/s 200 and R. P. Bhatnagar and Kuldeep Singh u/s 202, Cr. P. C. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Dangi while reading the statements of these witnesses argued that even prima facie it has not been made out that the news dated 9-5-82 pertains to Dr. Bhargava, the complainant. His name has not been mentioned in the news item. P. C. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Dangi while reading the statements of these witnesses argued that even prima facie it has not been made out that the news dated 9-5-82 pertains to Dr. Bhargava, the complainant. His name has not been mentioned in the news item. Apart from this, the statement of the complainant is very vague and contradictory with his own complaint regarding the date and day when he was travelling and when the 1st class compartment was checked by the Railway Magistrate. It was also argued that both the witnesses examined by the complainant are interested witnesses. According to him, the witness R. P. Bhatnagar is subordinate to the complainant, while Kuldeep Singh is the scooter mechanic who used to repair the scooter of the complainant. 5. I have perused the statements, the complaint and also the Rajasthan Patrika in which the news item has been published. There is no specific name to whom this news item relates. The complaint itself is very vague. The complainant has not clearly mentioned in it that this news item related to him. According to him, he believes that this news item related to him as he was travelling in that train on 7-5-82. As mentioned above, whether this train was checked by the Railway Magistrate on 7-5-82 or 8-5-82 is also in dispute. Whether it was Friday or Saturday is not clear from the complaint or from the statements of the witnesses. Any way, the complainant should have prima facie established that the news item relates to him only and none else. As he himself is not clear that this news item relates to him, I think that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioner on such vague complaint and vague statements. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s 500 and 501. IPC is bad and cannot be maintained. 6. Therefore, the Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is accepted, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20-7-82 is set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.Petition allowed. *******