Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of cognizance dated 8.4.2002 as also the entire prosecution of the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 407(C) of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Sections 499, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the Editor, Copy Editor and Copy Writer respectively of the English Publication The Times of India stationed at Patna. Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are stationed at New Delhi. 3. A complaint case bearing no. 407(C) of 2002 was filed by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Secretary against the present petitioners under Sections 499, 501 and 502. The complaint alleged that the complainant was a statutory body constituted under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. It was engaged in the business of conduct of Examination of Secondary Schools, Training Schools etc. and publication of results of the students who appeared in such examinations. Certain employees of the Board had gone on strike illegally. A news peblication was published in the Times of India Patna edition, on 10.8.2001. Petitioner no. 2 was said to be the reporter of the same. The complainant was surprised as the news item was not correct. By letter dated 13.8.2001 he requested for publication of a contradiction in the interest of fairness and transparency in the working of the Board. The Editor however refused to publish the contradiction. A copy of the publication is on record and has been purused by the Court. On 12.12.2001 another news item was published containing "some wrong and false things". The complainant felt that a "wrong message were given to the examinees so that misunderstanding be created". On 13.12.2001 the complainant requested for the contradiction to be published which was again not done. The publication dated 12.12.2001 is also on record and has been perused. 4. The complaint thus alleged that the contradictions were intentionally not published so that the complainant be defamed in the society and its prestige be lowered down in the society. On 13.12.2001 the accused persons falsely published in the news paper that "Sharma (Present Administrator) has lodged two First Information Reports against striking employees. The Employees have decided to continue their strike till the removal of Mr. Sharma from the Board". On 13.12.2001 the accused persons falsely published in the news paper that "Sharma (Present Administrator) has lodged two First Information Reports against striking employees. The Employees have decided to continue their strike till the removal of Mr. Sharma from the Board". This was alleged to be published maliciously to harm the reputation and character of the Administrator of the Board and to defame. A copy of the publication dated 13.12.2001 is also on record and has been perused. On 16.12.2001 another news item was published "B.S.E.S. Boss Ko Gussa Kyon Atta Hai. This news was false and was based only to lower down the character and prestige of the Board in the Society. The publication was malicious to harm the character of the complainant among the general people and to ruin the reputation and malign the character of the higher authority of the Board. The publication dated 16.12.2001 is also on record and has been perused. The complaint thus concluded that despite such repeated requests to the Resident Editor, etc. in all fairness the publication should have published the contradiction which was not done. Such false publication lowered the reputation and prestige of the Board. The same lowered the moral and intellectual character of the higher authority of the Board and that the accused persons knowingly did so to harm the reputation and to defame the complainant. 5. On these allegations cognizance has been taken by the order dated 8.4.2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under Sections 499, 501 and 502 of the Penal Code and the case has been transferred for trial to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. 6. Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the publication was admittedly from Patna only. It was further contended that in the entire complaint there was absolutely no material or even whisper against petitioner no. 5. Likewise there was no allegation against petitioner no. 4 except that despite intimation by the complainant for publication of the contradiction, petitioner no. 4 did nothing in the matter. No prima facie case could thus be said to have been made out against petitioner nos. 4 and 5 even on the face of the complaint so as to justify the order of cognizance in so far as the said petitioners be concerned. 4 did nothing in the matter. No prima facie case could thus be said to have been made out against petitioner nos. 4 and 5 even on the face of the complaint so as to justify the order of cognizance in so far as the said petitioners be concerned. He therefore submits that the order of cognizance as against petitioners 4 and 5 is per se bad as the complaint on the very face of it discloses no allegations as against them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners continuing his submissions stated that the entire publication read as it is could not be said to be even prima facie defamatory in nature. He contended that no reasonable person upon reading the publications could arrive at the conclusion that the alleged articles were per se defamatory in nature. It was also contended that the publication was only with regard to the public issue of functioning of the Board since it was a public institution. The further contention also is that the complaint itself took shifting stands. It first contended that the Board had been defamed, then, that the Secretary had been defamed and finally that the Administrator had been defamed. 7. Appearing for the opposite party, learned Senior Counsel Shri J.P. Shukla submitted that the complaint on the face of it disclosed a prima facie case and therefore cognizance had rightly been taken. The publication was deliberate with the intention to malign. He further submitted that the refusal to publish the contradiction was the element of defamation and that had the contradiction been published there would have been no occasion to allege defamation. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1996 All PLJR 76(SC) and 1995(2) SCC 449 in support of the proposition that this Court should be loathe to quash a prosecution under Section 482 at the initial stage and that there was no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order taking cognizance. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, and also perused the petition of complaint, the publications in question, the Court considers that the present prosecution is not of the variety which should not be interfered with at this stage. It is settled law that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted where the allegations cannot per se be said to be defamatory. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, and also perused the petition of complaint, the publications in question, the Court considers that the present prosecution is not of the variety which should not be interfered with at this stage. It is settled law that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted where the allegations cannot per se be said to be defamatory. It would be futile to hold that even in such cases the prosecution must continue and the persons concerned be subjected to the harassment and agony of a criminal trial unnecessarily, before they can be acquitted of the charges levelled. 9. This Court having perused the publications in question, as also the petition of complaint, concludes that the averments of the complaint or the publications in question cannot be said to be prima facie defamatory of any person so as to form the subject matter of a duly constituted trial. The publication on the face of it is simply a reporting of the functioning of the Board. The subject matter of a report on the functioning of the Board, a public body, could certainly not be said to be malicious, defamatory or intended to harm the reputation or image of any person. A simple publication with regard to the general functioning of the Board, a corporate Body dealing with the public, would" not be construed as defamation. The persons constituting such public body or authority should not be sensitive to the extent of intolerance. The publications in question have been made by a news paper which has certain guaranteed rights of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Undoubtedly this right has to be balanced with the restrictions that can be imposed upon the same coupled with the right of the people to know about the functioning of such public institutions. It is publication of news items which develops public awareness consequently leading to better output and performance by the public body through introspection occasioned by such objective publications. It would only be when such publication crosses the limits of freedom of expression and would offend the image, reputation etc. and would be done with the intention to do so that the offence of defamation could be made out. These conclusions would have to be culled out from the face of the complaint itself before the publication could be said to be prima facie defamatory. and would be done with the intention to do so that the offence of defamation could be made out. These conclusions would have to be culled out from the face of the complaint itself before the publication could be said to be prima facie defamatory. It would be useful to quote a passage from a Division bench judgment of this Court reported in 2000(2) PLJR 467 . In the case referred to the Bihar Public Service Commission had filed a complaint through its Under Secretary against the Resident Editor, Times of India, Patna edition, the Publisher and the Director of Pearl Printwell Company which prints the Times of India, Patna. A news item was published in the said publication on 21.8.1985 under the heading "A Seshan in BPSC". The publication imputed against the commission and its Chairman by alleging that the Auditor General in its report had accused them for misappropriation of funds. Despite the fact that the controversy in the BPSC had been set at rest by the Supreme Court, the accused persons tried to create impression in the mind of the public that the Chairman of the Commission has to act jointly like the Election Commission. The said statements were said to be defamatory on the face of it as it amounted to an imputation with an intent to harm the reputation of the Commission, its Chairman and its officials. Despite letter dated 30.8.1995 from the Commission objecting to the same the publication published another news item on 2.9.1995. These were said to be serious and mischievous allegations with the heading "BPSC made mysterious advances". The contents of this publication were said to be false and misleading. It was thus contended that the publications were false and were based on no evidence, misusing the liberty of the press with sole intention to harm the reputation of the Commission, its Chairman and its officials in the eye of the general public. A Division Bench of this Court after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the publications did not constitute offence of defamation as alleged in the complaint. It would be useful to quote paragraph 16 and 17 of the said judgment hereinbelow: 16. "In a democratic set up, the newspaper is the best means to highlight the deeds and misdeeds of the Government and the public authority. It would be useful to quote paragraph 16 and 17 of the said judgment hereinbelow: 16. "In a democratic set up, the newspaper is the best means to highlight the deeds and misdeeds of the Government and the public authority. A newspaper has a public duty to comment upon the functioning of the persons holding public positions. No doubt, while making the comments for ventilating the grievances of the public through the publication, the fact should not be derogatory to such officials and it should not be made with a view to lower down his position in the society on the basis of false and frivolous allegation. A fair comment made by the newspaper gives an opportunity to the citizens to know about the function of the office and at the same time also provides an opportunity to the holder of the office to rectify if the comment is found to be correct. The public servants should not be sensitive in these matters unless the comments have been made deliberately with a mala fide intention to harm the holder of the public office. 17. Cockburn, C.J. in Seymour V/s. Butterworth, (1862)3F & F372, observed as follows: "Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time. Bramwell B. in Kelley V/s. Sherlock, (1866)1 QB 686 observed as follows: "Whoever fills a public position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary though unpleasant, appendage to his office." 10. Thus based on the aforesaid reasonings as enunciated by the Division bench referred to above, the present publications in question cannot be construed to be prima facie defamatory so as to form the subject matter of a duly constituted trial. This coupled with the contention of the Counsel for the opposite party that the element of defamation lay in it the refusal to publish the contradiction and that had the contradiction been published there would have been no occasion to allege defamation, leads this Court to the conclusion that the prosecution does not appear to have been well founded. 11. This coupled with the contention of the Counsel for the opposite party that the element of defamation lay in it the refusal to publish the contradiction and that had the contradiction been published there would have been no occasion to allege defamation, leads this Court to the conclusion that the prosecution does not appear to have been well founded. 11. In conclusion, having considered the rival contentions and the law as enunciated in this regard by the Division Bench referred to above this Court holds that the publications in question did not amount to any imputation or insinuation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of Court. The order of cognizance dated 8.4.2002 and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case no. 407(C) of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna is therefore quashed. This application stands allowed.