JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.:---This Criminal Application is filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the private complaint and the process issued against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1451 of 1992 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Vadgaon, Taluka Maval, District Pune. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed the above private complaint for the offences of defamation, for printing defamatory matters and for sale or offering for sale the printed matter containing defamatory statements which are punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was filed in view of the editorial written under the title why we were arrested published in the issue of 6th February, 1992 of newspaper O Herald. It is stated in the complaint that the said editorial tried to justify the arrest of the complainant describing him as a smuggler and making other defamatory statements about the complainant, as a result of which, the moral or intellectual character of the complainant and/or the character of the complainant in respect of his business and/or the credit of the complainant in the estimate of the others, particularly, the residents of the Lonavala has been directly or indirectly lowered. The said complaint has been filed against the editor, publisher of the Herald Publication Private Limited and the petitioners who are the directors of the said publication. The petitioners who are the three directors of Herald Publication Private Limited have been arraigned to the complaint as accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are editor and publisher respectively, while accused No. 6 is the Herald Publication Private Limited, who are not party to this petition. 3. The perusal of the complaint shows that it does not make out case for the aforesaid offence as against the petitioners. Para 1 of the complaint states that petitioners are the directors of accused No. 6 which publishes the said Herald and are as such responsible for the statements made in the said newspaper. In para 3 of the complaint it is stated that the newspaper was published, printed, sold and circulated at the instance of accused Nos. 2 to 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the process was issued against all the accused including the petitioners. In para 3 of the complaint it is stated that the newspaper was published, printed, sold and circulated at the instance of accused Nos. 2 to 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the process was issued against all the accused including the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the process issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that they are in no way concerned with the day to day publication of the said newspaper Herald nor with the actual publication of the article in question which is alleged to be defamatory. It is further stated in the application that the petitioners who are the directors of the said Company are only concerned with the overall policy and financial matters and are in no way responsible for the publication of any particular article including the article in question. 4. After this application was filed, this court had issued notice before admission to the respondents by granting ad interim order of stay of the proceedings as against the petitioners only. Ultimately, the rule was issued on 7-9-1993 and interim order of stay of the further proceedings in the above case was passed in respect of the present petitioners only. Thereafter, though the respondent No. 1-complainant was served, he has not chosen to appear before the court today or on previous occasions when the matter had reached for final hearing nor he has filed reply affidavit opposing the petition. 5. So far as the charge for defamation is concerned, Mr. Gupte contends that not only the defamatory statements must be made or published but the same must be done with an intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. In the complaint as it is, there is no allegation that the issue bearing the advertisement was published by the petitioners either with intention or knowing or having reason to believe that the statements made in the advertisement will harm the reputation of the complainant. Under sections 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code the printing and selling must be done knowing or having reason to believe that the matter printed was defamatory of any person. In the complaint the complainant has not stated that any of the petitioners have allowed the publication of the said editorial intentionally or with the knowledge requisite for the said offences. In the complaint the complainant has not stated that any of the petitioners have allowed the publication of the said editorial intentionally or with the knowledge requisite for the said offences. The averments made in the application have also gone unchallenged as respondent-complainant has not appeared nor filed any return to contest the same. 6. The complainant had stated in paragraph 2 of the complaint, a copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit A to this application, that he had filed a similar case for defamation bearing Case No. 2943 of 1991 in that very court against the petitioners for describing him as smuggler in the issue dated 24-9-1991 of the said publication. Mr. Gupte pointed out that the petitioners had challenged the process issued in that case also by filing Criminal Application No. 2461 of 1992 in this Court. The said application was allowed by this Court (Coram : M.L. Dudhat, J.) on 7th October, 1992 at the time of admission when the complainant was represented by an advocate and the process issued against these very petitioners was quashed in that case in which these petitioners were joined as accused on the same allegations and averments which are made in the present complaint, which is the subject matter of this petition. It was observed while allowing that application and quashing the criminal case as follows : ......Taking into consideration the position of a Director simpliciter under the Companies Act, by no stretch of imagination the Directors in the present case can be held responsible criminally under section 500 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the publication of the article in Herald published on 24th September, 1991. 7. Similarly, it is brought to my notice that these petitioners had filed one more application in this Court being Criminal Application No. 2459 of 1992 for quashing Criminal Case No. 418/S/91 filed by the present complainant in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court at Esplanade, Bombay which also came to be allowed and the process issued in that case was quashed by the order of this Court on 7th October, 1992. 8. I agree with the observations made in the above orders of this court. 8. I agree with the observations made in the above orders of this court. Besides that, taking into consideration the allegation made in the complaint and the ingredients of the offences alleged to have been made against the petitioners-accused, I am of the view that no case is made out against any of these petitioners who are directors of the Company as they are not shown to be in charge of the day to day publication of the issues of the said newspaper. 9. In the result, I quash and set aside the process issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vadgaon in Criminal Case No. 1451 of 1992 against these petitioners who are original accused Nos. 3 to 5. 10. Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. Petition allowed. -----