Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.4.2002 by which Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagariya has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 320, 467, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 116(C)/2002. 2. It appears that the petitioner is a News Editor of daily news paper published from Khagaria, namely, "Sandhya Khabar" which is duly registered with the Registrar News Paper of India under the authority of Press Council of India bearing Registration No. BHHI 4421/4/1/2001 T.C. registered under Section 6 of the Registration of News Papers and Book Act, 1867. A news item under the caption "Dr. RANA KE SAHYOGI CHANDRADEO PARASAD YADAV KE BIRUDHA THANA ME F.I.R. DARJ CBI KE CHHAPE KI DAHSAT. CHANDRADEO PRASAD YADAV KE KHILAF MAMLA KHAGARIA NYAYALAYA TAK PAHUNCHA." was published in the aforesaid daily news paper "Sandhya Khabar" on 19.1.2002 and 5.2.2002. It was published, in the News paper on the basis of the First Information Report, Khagaria Police Station Case No. 384/2001 dated 23.11.2001. By the publication of this news item the opposite party felt insulted, humiliated and aggrieved. He accordingly filed a complaint case against the petitioner alleging therein that the news was without any factual basis and has been published only in order to defame the reputation of the opposite party No. 2, who is a respectable person of Khagaria. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the News Editor of the daily news paper "Sandhya Khabar" has not written or published anything of his own rather he has written or published only those facts which have been stated in the fardbeyan of the First Information Report of Khagaria Police Station Case No. 384/2001 dated 23.11.2001. It has been further submitted that being irked by the publication of the said news item about him on the basis of the contents of the First Information Report, the complainant has tried to pressurize and terrorise the media and its reporters and when he could not get success in his unlawful efforts, he has filed the false complaint case and managed the witnesses. It has also been submitted that from the entire facts and circumstances of the case it will be clear that there is no case at all and the petitioner who is journalist has unnecessarily been harassed and humiliated in the matter and has been made an accused in the case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.4.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria suffers from irregularity, impropriety and illegality and this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and continuation of the proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint petition as well as cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is against the provision of Constitution of India and also against the Freedom of Press and is an indirect attack on the liberty of Press which is important and necessary pillar of democracy. It has also been submitted that if the order impugned is not interfered with it is a blow on the right of freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution. In reply to counter affidavit filed by the opposite party, the petitioner has further submitted and explained his submission and claimed that being a journalist he has protection under Press Council Act, 1978 for publication of any news item to bring out the facts and malpractices committed by politicians and officials. He has relied on a decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court in which it was held that the journalist should not be unnecessarily harassed for publishing the news items based on facts, as in this case the news item is based on the FIR lodged by CBI and in such case the Court was pleased to quash such proceeding. 4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that from the complaint petition a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It has been also submitted that it is true that the petitioner is a News Editor of a news paper. This does not give him right to publish news only in order to tarnish the image of complainant- opposite party No. 2 who is a respectable person in the society. It has been also submitted that it is true that the petitioner is a News Editor of a news paper. This does not give him right to publish news only in order to tarnish the image of complainant- opposite party No. 2 who is a respectable person in the society. It is wrong to say that the news item so published is on the basis of FIR aforesaid and from perusal of Annexure 5 (FIR) it would be apparent that it is not consistent with the news item so published. It has been further submitted that rather the news item is not limited to the contents of the FIR and has gone beyond it intentionally only to tarnish the image of the complainant and his son. The petitioner also published a pamphlet alleging therein that opposite party No. 2 was connected with the fodder scam also which is not the fact. In any view, it was stated that the petitioner has not got absolute protection under Press Council Act and is also liable to be punished for publication of news item so published to defame the opposite party No. 2. 5. From perusal of order impugned and the relevant annexures it appears that the alleged occurrence about which news item reported to have been published took place on 23.11.2001. From perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that report from G.R. section was called for the period from 19.1.2002 to 21.3.2002, the date between which the news item was published. Obviously, the report from G.R. section did not support that such occurrence was reported. On this report learned Chief Judicial Magistrate wrongly reported that the news item published in the paper Annexure 4 is wrong and also have no base. The News Editor in democratic set up is duty bound to inform the people about what is happening in the society and if any news is derogatory and defamatory against some one it should have some basis for its publication. It could not be an offence defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code Exception 8. The News Editor in democratic set up is duty bound to inform the people about what is happening in the society and if any news is derogatory and defamatory against some one it should have some basis for its publication. It could not be an offence defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code Exception 8. According to Press Council Act, 1978 the petitioner or any body connected with news has protection under the Act for publishing any news item against any reputed and respectable man, if it has been published on the basis of some relevant information or public document since it is the sacred duty and responsibility of the press towards the society. This Court in its judgment which has been annexed as Annexures 14 and 15, in reply to the counter affidavit, has taken similar view also. In view of above I am of the opinion that no case is made out against the petitioner and cognizance taken against him was on erroneous consideration that there was no basis for publication of news item (Annexure 4). As such, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly the order impugned is quashed and this application is allowed.