Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 682 (MP)

R. D. Vyas v. C. K. Shrivastava

2000-07-18

S.S.SARAF

body2000
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been directed against the order dated 9.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar in criminal revision No. 60/99 affirming the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jagdalpur in criminal complaint case No. 2074/98. The facts giving rise to this petition are these: The respondent No. 1 made a written complaint to the petitioner No.1 who is the Principal in Government P.G. College. Jagdalpur. It was alleged in the complaint that one V.K. Shrivastava assistant Professor in Botany in the same Government P.G. College, Jagdalpur misbehaved with Ku. Shradha Shrivastava daughter of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 requested that the action at the level of the petitioner No. 1 may be taken against V.K. Shrivastava. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 along with petitioner No.2 and 3 who are also professor and assistant professor respectively in the same institution deliberately informed about the said incident to the city correspondent of the daily news paper 'Dainik Bhaskar'. Consequently newspaper Dainik Bhaskar published the news under the head ^^u'ks esa /kqRr Ák/;kid }kjk NsM+NkM+** By publication of the aforesaid news not only the respondent No. 1, but also his daughter have been defamed in the society. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 filed a criminal complaint for offence under Section 500 IPC against the petitioners. The learned C.J.M., Jagdalpur after completing the enquiry registered a criminal case for offence as above against the petitioners. by order dated 12.4.1999 passed in criminal complaint case No. 2074/98. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.4.1999, the petitioners filed a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge. Bastar by order dated 9.12.1999 passed in criminal revision No. 60/99 dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.12.1999. the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. has been filed by the petitioners invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the entire record. I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. A careful scrutiny of the entire record reveals that the written complaint made by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 was received in the college on 29.11.1997. which is clear from the register of letters received in the institution. I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. A careful scrutiny of the entire record reveals that the written complaint made by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 was received in the college on 29.11.1997. which is clear from the register of letters received in the institution. It is also clear that the petitioner No. 1 took action and wrote four letters to Commissioner, Bastar Division. Joint Director, Higher Education, Bhopal. Collector. Bastar and Additional Director, Higher Education. Raipur regarding the complaint made by the respondent No. 1 against V.K. Shrivastava. This clearly shows that the petitioner No. 1 has acted within his authority as Principal and informed the higher authorities regarding the conduct of V.K. Shrivastava. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners ever informed the Editor or the city correspondent regarding the news items published in the news paper. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the editor and the city correspondent have informed in written to the respondent No. 1 that they got the information from the petitioners. On the contrary the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both of them have subsequently swom affidavits to the effect that such information was given by them under pressure and in fact they did not receive any information from the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that these documents have not been filed in the trial Court. However. they indicate the conduct of the editor and the city correspondent and therefore both the sets of information given by them do not help either party. A careful scrutiny of the entire record further reveals that the complainant/respondent No. 1 has not mentioned in the complaint that such information was given by the petitioners for publication to the editor and city correspondent. It is also apparently clear from the record that the complainant/respondent No. 1 and his daughter Shradha Shrivastava have been examined in the trial Court and have stated nothing regarding the fact that such information was given by the petitioners to the Newspaper. As pointed out earlier. the information regarding the conduct of V.K. Shrivastava was sent to four higher authorities on 1.12.1997 while the news was published on 6.12.1997 and therefore. without there being specific material to that effect. it cannot be said that the information was given by the petitioners. As pointed out earlier. the information regarding the conduct of V.K. Shrivastava was sent to four higher authorities on 1.12.1997 while the news was published on 6.12.1997 and therefore. without there being specific material to that effect. it cannot be said that the information was given by the petitioners. By 6.12.1997 the information must have reached four other officers including two officers of Jagdalpur. It is also apparently clear that it must have been known to the staff of the petitioner No. 1 who must have written those letters to higher officers. Since, there is nothing on record of the trial Court to establish whether such information was given by the petitioners themselves. it cannot be inferred that the news item was published on the basis of information given by them. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Dharampal v. Ramshre ( AIR 1993 SC 1361 ) when the first revision filed by the petitioners under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the trial Court is dismissed. they cannot file the second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having considered the above aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. I am of the view that this cannot be accepted. It is apparently clear that the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground inter alia that the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence which was not adduced by the complainant in the trial Court. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge clearly establishes that he relied on the written information given by the editor and the city correspondent regarding the source of information received by them. though such written documents have not been filed in the trial Court. As pointed out earlier. there is nothing on record of the trial Court to indicate that these two media person ever gave any written information to the complainant. It is also manifest from the record that neither the editor nor the city correspondent has been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., in the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore not justified in relying on the piece of evidence which was not adduced by the complainant in the trial Court. It is also manifest from the record that neither the editor nor the city correspondent has been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., in the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore not justified in relying on the piece of evidence which was not adduced by the complainant in the trial Court. Even if it is assumed that such written information was given by media person to the complainant. it is also manifest from the record that subsequently they sworn affidavits that they did not receive such information from the petitioners. It is, therefore, safer not to rely on the written information or such affidavits to arrive at a conclusion. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court should have based their findings on the evidence adduced before the trial Court. The finding of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Court is not therefore based on evidence adduced in the enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. For reasons stated above, this petition cannot be termed as second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. and therefore, it cannot be said that such petition is not maintainable. In view of above. it is apparently clear that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners for offence under Section 500 IPC. The continuance of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The quashing of the impugned proceedings therefore is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The petition is therefore allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in criminal complaint case No. 2074/98 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jagdalpur are quashed.