Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 435 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Misra, Corespondent Danik Jagran v. Amar Singh Krishna Singh

2006-02-13

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2006
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is filed by Manoj Kumar Misra correspondent Dainik Jagran with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of complain case No. 2189 of 1986- Amar Singh v. Narendra mohan and Ors. pending in the court of learned IIIrd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur and to quash the summoning order dated 19. 1. 1987 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur. In this case a notice was issued to the opposite party on 15. 4. 1986. According to the report of the C. J. M. Fatehpur notice was served upon the opposite party on 29. 12. 2004. After service of notice Amar Singh did not appear in the court nor on his behalf any counsel has filed memo of appearance. The matter is too old and service of notice has been done on 29. 12. 2004 therefore it is not proper to wait further for any response from the opposite party amar Singh. ( 2 ) HEARD the leaned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. ( 3 ) IN the present case a complaint dated 9. 12. 1986 has been filed by Amar Singh in the court of learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur in criminal complaint case No. 2189 of 1986. In this case the statement of the complainant Amar singh has been recorded under Section 200 on 20. 12. 1986 and the statement of other witnesses namely Chhadami and Shivdas Pandey have been recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. . After perusing the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded as mentioned above, the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 I. P. C. on 19. 1. 1987. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a correspondent of amar Ujala daily news papers. On the basis of the information given by him a news item was published in Dainik Jagran on 5. 12. 1. 1987. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a correspondent of amar Ujala daily news papers. On the basis of the information given by him a news item was published in Dainik Jagran on 5. 12. 1986 with the heading that It is said that due to the publication of this news items the prestige of of the opposite party Amar Singh was lowered in the society because he is a respectable person commanding good reputation in the society even he was deciding the matter by way of doing Panchayat. ( 5 ) IT is contended that opposite party Amar Singh is a criminal. He is involved in many criminal cases and he has been challaned in so many criminal cases. He was challaned under Section 110 cr. P. C. from P. S. Chandpur district Fatehpur. In the criminal history the opposite party Amar singh is mentioned According to that report opposite party Amar Singh was involved in 11 criminal cases. ( 6 ) IT is contended that the opposite party Amar Singh is a criminal and and there was nothing wrong in this news items published in Dainik Jagran, daily news papers and opposite party Amar singh is not commanding a good reputation. He is a criminal and he has created terror in the society. ( 7 ) IT is further contended that the publication has fairly been done by the applicant and he has not crossed the limit of freedom of the press. Therefore, no offence against the applicant is made out. ( 8 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the learned magistrate has taken cognizance after considering the complaint and the statement of the witnesses. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 19. 1. 1987. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. it appears that in the present case fair reporting has been done by the applicant because opposite party was involved in criminal cases. He was not having any reputation in the society and on the basis of the news items published in dainik Jagran dated 5. 12. He was not having any reputation in the society and on the basis of the news items published in dainik Jagran dated 5. 12. 1986 and on the basis of the statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. a prima facie f offence under Sections 500, 501 and 502 I. P. C. is made out. In such a situation it will not be proper to proceed further against the applicant and other co-accused in pursuance of the complaint filed by O. P. No. 2 therefore, the criminal proceedings in complaint case No. 2189 of 1986- Amar Singh v. Narendra Mohan pending in the court of learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate Fatehpur are hereby quashed. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY this application is allowed. . .