Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 243 (BOM)

Rajendra Jawaharlal Darda v. State of Maharashtra

2009-02-20

S.S.SHINDE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. This application is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of process dated 27.12.1999 passed by 3rd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded in R.C.C.No.824 of 1999 and the entire criminal proceedings in said case against the applicant as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No.100/2000. 2. Background facts of the case are as under: A news items was published in Daily Lokmat, A’bad about arrest of respondent no.1 by the police of Akhada Balapur Police Station for the alleged offence U/Ss 420, 468, 471 r.w.34 of IPC. It was reported that said Prabhakar Dubbewar was arrested on 10.7.98 and was produced before Magistrate who remanded him to police custody till 17.7.98. It was reported that police intercepted the luxury bus No.MH-26-326 on suspicion that bus was not registered and was being run for more than 5-6 months on Nanded-Umerkhed road by displaying bogus registration No, thereby dubing Government by non-payment of the tax by bus owner-Sandeep Amilkanthwar on whose name bus was standing but power of attorney was in favour of Prabhakar Dubbewar. At the relevant time petitioner was the Editor of Lokmat. However, one Shri Mahaveer Jondhale was the Executive Editor and his name was published with the note that he is responsible for selection of news published in newspaper as per Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Learned J.M.F.C. Kalamnuri discharged all the accused in R.C.C.No.203/98 arising out of C.R. No.78/1998 of Akhada Balapur police station. Respondent no.1 filed private complaint against 7 accused including petitioner (arrayed as accd.no.3) u/Ss. 500 and 506 r.w.120-B of IPC. Respondent no.1 also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Learned 3rd Jt. J.M.F.C.Nanded ordered for issuance of process against all the accused for the offence U/s 500 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Petitioner filed Revision in the Sessions Court, Nanded challenging said order. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded rejected Cri. Revision No.100/2000. Hence this Criminal Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute case against the applicant. As per section 499, 4th exception, it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of result of any such proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute case against the applicant. As per section 499, 4th exception, it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of result of any such proceedings. The petitioner being Chief Editor no presumption arises against him nor any allegations are made that he had knowledge of such publication. hence, no process ought to have been issued. It is further submitted that any further proceedings would be abuse of process of Court. 4. It is further submitted that at the relevant time i.e. on the date of publication of the said news item, the applicant was the Editor of Daily Lokmat. However, one Mahaveer Jondhale was the Executive Editor and consequently the name of Shri Mahaveer Jondhale was published as such with the note that he is responsible for selection of the news published in the newspaper as per the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Even the requisite affidavit was also submitted before the competent authority in that behalf. It is further submitted that said Shri Mahaveer Jondhale is the Executive Editor and is in sole charge of editing and management of the newspaper and he is responsible for selection of the news and articles appearing in the newspaper. 5. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that the respondent no.1 Prabhakar Dubbewar was arrested by the police, he was produced before the Magistrate for police custody remand, he was remanded to the police custody and the respondent no.1 had moved an application for releasing him on bail according to learned counsel, a newspaper is entitled to publish the report of the proceedings of court and as per the provisions of 4th Exception to Section 499 of I.P.C., it is clear that "it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of result of any such proceedings". 6. It is further case of the applicant that the respondent no.1 filed the private complaint on or about 11th October 1999 against seven accused wherein the present applicant was added as accused no.3 for the offence of defamation under sections 500 and 506 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. and even prayed for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 6. It is further case of the applicant that the respondent no.1 filed the private complaint on or about 11th October 1999 against seven accused wherein the present applicant was added as accused no.3 for the offence of defamation under sections 500 and 506 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. and even prayed for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Nanded by order dated 27.12.1999 was pleased to order for issuance of process against all the accused for the offence under section 500 read with 34 of I.P.C. 7. According to learned counsel, the revisional Court should have quashed and set aside the process issued by J.M.F.C. However, the said revision came to be rejected. Hence this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the present applicant and as such this is a fit case for exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied on judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ch.Bhajanlal, reported in 8. It is further submitted that it is admitted position that respondent no.1/original complainant was arrested in connection with an offence registered under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 of I.P.C. and he was produced before J.M.F.C. for police custody remand, he was in fact remanded to the police custody and he applied for bail. As per the provisions of section 499, 4th Exception of I.P.C. it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of such proceedings. Undisputedly, the news item published in daily Lokmat is the substantially true report of the proceedings of the Court and as such no offence whatsoever is made out against the present applicant under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the case would be clearly covered by 4th Exception of Section 499 of I.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of and the judgment of this Court in 9. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that for all these reasons any further proceedings on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents would be abuse of process and, therefore, the complaint and further proceedings on the basis of the said complaint filed by the respondents may be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the findings recorded by the revisional Court and submitted that application deserves to be rejected. 11. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, I am of the considered view that the present application deserves to be allowed. It seems from the perusal of the reasonings given by the revisional Court, the revision petitioner-original accused no.3 who is also shown as Editor of the newspaper. It is further observed that it cannot be decided at this stage that whether responsibility can be delegated by publishing such item to Mr. Jondhale and, therefore, in case of present applicant also further enquiry is necessary. The revisional Court further went on to discuss about the delegating work and delegating powers and for that full enquiry is required. 12. According to revisional Court, it was not necessary for the J.M.F.C. to find out who is the responsible person, who is looking after publication of daily news in the newspaper at the stage of issuance of the process and, therefore, the J.M.F.C. as correct even issuing process against the present applicant. 13. In my considered view, without going into the details, it would be suffice to say that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the J.M.F.C. or the revisional Court should have made some deeper enquiry about the role of the present applicant in publishing the said news item in question. Apart from that, it appears from the entire pleadings that the news item which was published was in respect of same order passed by the Court which in fact was passed and news item was in respect of Court proceedings. The revisional Court or J.M.F.C. should have taken some pains to find out that whether the news item published in the newspaper is based upon true proceeding/order passed by the Court about respondent and thereafter Court should have proceeded further. The revisional Court or J.M.F.C. should have taken some pains to find out that whether the news item published in the newspaper is based upon true proceeding/order passed by the Court about respondent and thereafter Court should have proceeded further. It is true that it is not expected that the J.M.F.C. while issuing the process should satisfy himself in great detail, however, it is necessary to have at least fishing enquiry about contents of the news item and court proceedings on which basis said news item was published. In my considered view, even preliminary enquiry should have satisfied the J.M.F.C. Thus, no process could have been issued against the present applicant. I also find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant time one Mr.Mahaveer Jondhale was incharge of the said newspaper to look after day to day publication of the news items. Viewed from any angle, continuation of any further proceedings on the basis of said complaint filed by the respondent herein, would be abuse of process of Court. After all the press can be considered as 4th pillar of democracy and if the news item is published which is based upon correct proceedings/order passed by the competent Court, cannot be termed as false news item without examining the news item and order passed in the Court proceedings. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that any further proceedings would be abuse of process of the Court, hence the application deserves to be allowed. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ’C’. In the result, the order of issuance of process dated 27.12.1999 passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded in R.C.C.No.824/1999 and entire criminal proceedings in the said case against the applicant as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No.100 of 2000 so far it relates to present applicant is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute and application is disposed of. 14. It is made clear that this judgment and order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.