JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sriganganagar (for short 'the revisional Court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter), was dismissed. 2. By order dated 8.12.2006 notices for final disposal of petition were issued to the respondents, which have been served. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders impugned passed by both the Courts below. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's daughter Smt. Gurpreet Kaur married to the respondent No. 3 Harpreet Singh. However, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 started harassing the petitioner's daughter. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and her "Stridhan" was misappropriated and thereby committed the offence of criminal breach of trust/misappropriation of property i.e. "Stridhan" and also under Section 498-A I.P.C. for which a criminal case by lodging an F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. was registered against the respondents No. 2 to 4. On registering a crime report, police investigated the F.I.R. case and police arrested the respondents and produced them before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. A news item was also published with regard to the arrest of the respondents in the said F.I.R. case. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lodging of the crime report/F.I.R. and the arresting of the accused-respondents is a fact from the record of the trial Court and this cannot be any defamatory statement. So far the arrests of the respondents are concerned, there was a criminal case registered against them and the arrest of the respondents was effected by the public servant while discharging official duty empowered under the provisions of Cr.P.C. So far as the photographs published in the newspapers, there is absolutely no evidence that they were got published by the petitioner and there cannot be a presumption that it was the petitioner, who gave such photographs for publication. 6. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. 6. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. In my view, except the statement of the complainant, there appears to be no other evidence directly involving the petitioner for commission of the said offence. The complainant stated that the petitioner gave the photographs but except the bald statement of complainant, there being no evidence that the photographs, which were published, were in power and possession of petitioner and it is he, who gave to newspaper editor for publication with an intention to defame the respondents. In absence of any evidence to the effect that petitioner gave the photographs to the editor of the newspapers for publication with the intention to defame the respondent, in the circumstances, from the material available on record, in my view, there is no criminal intent of causing defamation. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court fell in the error in not properly considering the material in right perspective. In my view, there is no sufficient material to take cognizance of offence and proceed against the petitioner. In this view of matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Order passed by the revisional Court dated 13.9.2006 as well as the order passed by the trial Court dated 28.1.2005 are set aside.Petition allowed. *******