ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 48 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudur. 2. The petitioner is A-3 in the above case. The proceedings against A-2 and A-4 were quashed by this Court through the orders dated 9-8-2004 and 11-3-2002 in Criminal Petition Nos. 3607 and 3606 of 2000 respectively. 3. The petitioner is described as a Desk In-charge of the Newspaper. There is no averment in the complaint as to what was the role played by the petitioner in publication of the news item. The gist of the news item is that the Pujari of Chennakeshava Swamy Temple mortgaged the temple land as that of his land and obtained loan from the bank. It is mentioned in the news item that when B.J.P. leaders probed into the matter, this fact came to light. 4. The complainant, who is an employee of the bank, claims that he is the son of the Pujari of the said temple and after death of the Pujari, the complainant's brother was doing archana till 1993 and after that his sister's son is doing archana and the complainant is assisting the said man now and then, the complainant mentioned that their family is put to shame among the public due to the news item, as there is a highly respectful traditional family. He further mentioned that the complainant is not aware of the properties in the name of the temple and there is no question of mortgaging the same to the bank. He has not taken any loan on the security of those lands. 5. The news item did not give any details of the loan transaction, the amount taken and the details of the land mortgaged. The complainant is at liberty to issue a rejoinder contradicting the statement, if it is a fact that it is a temple land and it is not mortgaged by the temple Pujari by name Narasaiah. The complainant did not mention that the person mentioned as Pujari in the news item is no other than the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any prima facie material to attract the provisions of Section 500 I.P.C. 6. The complainant did not mention that the person mentioned as Pujari in the news item is no other than the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any prima facie material to attract the provisions of Section 500 I.P.C. 6. In view of the ratio in Vivek Goenka v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Crl.L.J. 4058 a person, who is not responsible for publication of an offending news item, cannot be held liable for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. Though the complainant mentioned the name of the petitioner as one of the accused, he did not mention as to what role the complainant played in publishing the news item. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the prosecution against A-3 in the above case is quashed.