R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS rule was issued for quashing the proceedings of C. R. Case No. 501 of 1987 pending disposal before the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly, Sadar when cognizance was taken for allegedly committing an offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) I shall now set out the background in which the litigation was launched. The complainant has an illustrious social career who is an active member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist ). He is also the Sabhadhipati of the Hooghly Zilla Parishad. He has, apart from his illustrious career, commendable performance as such in social welfare. ( 3 ) IT is notorious that the editor, printer and publisher of the Bartaman Patrika published a news item on 24th of August, 1987, in the third column at page 3 of it about the infliction of torture by the complainant armed with a large number of persons on a Congress supporter who was constrained to leave the place of abode. The news impugned, according to the complainant, were but scurrilous rumours given currency to commit an assault on the reputation of the complainant. It was an assassination of character without any truth behind it. ( 4 ) THE news epitomises fluster and fury without any ring of truth in it. The object of the publication of such news was to malign the complainant who became answerable to the public at large. His image before the public has been tarnished. It was not at all a fair comment. It is not only contumacious but also injurious to the name and fame of the complainant. The deliberate and willful act of the accused who plotted in secret is to undermine the prestige and reputation, of the complainant. ( 5 ) TO ensure protection of his right as he is a man of repute, he was constrained to file the complaint which has set the law into motion. The taking of cognizance and issuance of process became the subject-matter of the quashing in the revision. ( 6 ) THE question arose for determination of the court is, if the learned Magistrate in the background of the materials disclosed in the petition of complaint could take cognizance and issue process. ( 7 ) MR. The taking of cognizance and issuance of process became the subject-matter of the quashing in the revision. ( 6 ) THE question arose for determination of the court is, if the learned Magistrate in the background of the materials disclosed in the petition of complaint could take cognizance and issue process. ( 7 ) MR. Sanyal, the learned Advocate, appearing for the revisionist has raised a contention that element of section 500 of the I. P. C. is meticulously absent in the petition of complaint which nevertheless affords any circumstance to the learned court below to take cognizance and issue process. According to him, the impugned publication, if read as a whole, does not constitute prima facie an offence under section 500 of the I. P. C. Excepting the two concluding paragraphs of the said news item, as argued, there is nothing which could turn to be an offence under the parameter of section 500 of the I. P. C. The truth of the allegation since not disputed by the complainant, the invoking of jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate is uncalled for. The reputation spoken of by the complainant does not refer to the reputation in his own estimation and it is the reputation at the estimation of others. It is a fair and privilege comment which a person can take protection of under the exception, as provided to section 499 of the I. P. C. , even at the early stage. There is no dispute about the proposition of law as laid down by section 499 of the I. P. C. But the question of good faith is the turning point. The question of good faith is a question of fact which does not come within the fold of revision at this stage. It should be borne in the mind that the privilege of the press is not absolute but qualified being circumscribed within the limits of the provisions enjoined by the statute as argued. Undoubtedly, the press has a freedom in impressing the minds of the people which does not necessarily mean that the press could publish any news item which may injure the reputation of the person concerned. Therefore, it is essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take care before publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person. Therefore, it is essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take care before publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person. ( 8 ) AS argued, the complainant undoubtedly fills a public position for which he renders himself liable to criticism and that public men in position may as well think it worth their while to ignore vulgar criticism rather than give an importance to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the same. To refute the contention, the learned Advocate for the opposite party has seriously disputed that public person cannot ipso facto accept the vulgar criticism in respect of which there is no basis. It cannot divorce from future prospect and make him the target of severe frivolous criticism. Therefore, according to him, it affords no circumstance for the revisionist to any protection until it is established affirmatively that the person publishing the news believe them to be true and that on reasonable grounds. ( 9 ) IN the background of the materials, disclose in the complaint, it is manifest that there is prima facie material to constitute an offence under section 500 of the I. P. C. which the learned court below has rightly decided and for which a detailed enquiry is not called for during the course of such enquiry. The court should only be satisfied as to whether a prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and, therefore, no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. ( 10 ) THE exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case has not been encompassed by an enquiry under section 202 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has canvassed throughout that the court of revision is not armed with power to embark on an enquiry about the property of the allegations. The court of revision is to consider about the propriety of the order passed. The steps taken by the learned Magistrate within the wings of the Criminal Procedure Code, if manifest illegalities or not or the learned Magistrate overstepped the limits of the jurisdiction vested in him by law to be seen by the court of revision. ( 11 ) MR. The steps taken by the learned Magistrate within the wings of the Criminal Procedure Code, if manifest illegalities or not or the learned Magistrate overstepped the limits of the jurisdiction vested in him by law to be seen by the court of revision. ( 11 ) MR. Sanyal, the learned Advocate, for the revisionist has cited a good number of decisions to base his claim. They are : ( 12 ) RAJKAPUR v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 383 ; Sunilakha v. H. M. Jadeet, AIR 1968 Cal 264 ; N. J. Nanporia and Another v. Brojendra Bhowmick and Another, 79 Calwn 531. ( 13 ) IN the case of Rajkapur v. Laxman (supra), the Hon'ble Court considered the combined effect of section 79 of the I. P. C. and section 5a of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It came to the conclusion, "the Board of Censor, acting within their jurisdiction and an application made and pursued in good faith, sanctions the public exhibition, the producer and connected agencies do enter the statutory harbour and are protected because section 79 exonerates them at least in view of their bona fide belief that the certificate is justificatory. ( 14 ) NEXT case relied on by him is the case of Sunilakha v. H. M. Jadeet (supra ). The facts of the ruling under reference fall on different premises. The factual premises of the case was whether an action for defamation is maintainable against the Director and if a person writes out merely a defamatory matter, although there was no such publication of it, the same is liable to an action. Another point fell for consideration of the court was about the jurisdiction. It is noteworthy from the decision under reference that action against opposite party No. 1, however, stood quashed but the court permitted the proceedings to be continued against the opposite party No. 2. ( 15 ) MR. Sanyal then relied on a case of N. J. Nanporia and Another v. Brojendra Bhowmick and Another (supra ). The facts of the case were totally different from the case against which the instant revision arose. There, the Hon'ble Court held that prosecution may lie when there is a proof of express malice. ( 15 ) MR. Sanyal then relied on a case of N. J. Nanporia and Another v. Brojendra Bhowmick and Another (supra ). The facts of the case were totally different from the case against which the instant revision arose. There, the Hon'ble Court held that prosecution may lie when there is a proof of express malice. ( 16 ) BUT, in the instant case, this is still a distant claim because the matter to be set at rest only in course of the trial for which the Court of revision cannot come to the real aid of the revisionist. ( 17 ) THE facts and circumstances involved in the decision under reference, therefore, are not applicable to the facts of the present case in the background of prima facie materials existed constituting commission of an offence allegedly under section 500 of the I. P. C. The case at hand, as submitted by the learned Advocate for the opposite party, has admittedly no factual basis. Reckless publication of a news item in the newspaper when per se defamatory, an action will lie, thus. However, I am not addressing the case on merit for the reasons indicated above. The decision when taken by the learned court before in exercise of the power under the Cr. P. C. which is not ex facie illegal, the invocation of revisional power is uncalled for. I would be extremely slow in interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Quashing is an extraordinary for which revisional power could seldom be called in aid and that could only be called to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. ( 18 ) I have considered the peak and angle of the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties; but I do not find any prima facie poignant material to interfere with the order complained of as there is nothing on record that the cognizance taken and the process issued were an abusive of the process of the court. In the result, the revision fails. Petition dismissed. .