Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 983 (BOM)

Dnyanesh Maharao v. Sanathan Sanstha

2013-05-09

R.P.SONDURBALDOTA

body2013
JUDGMENT :- This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of Private Criminal Case No. 131/2008/B filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are original accused nos. 1 to 5. Petitioner no. 1 is the editor of petitioner no.2 magazine. Petitioner no. 3 is its publisher and printer. Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are some of the authors of the defamatory articles alleged in the complaint. By its order dated 8th December, 2008 the trial Court after its satisfaction that prima facie imputation made in magazine of petitioner no.2 are defamatory, issued process against petitioners herein and accused no. 8. The trial Court found that there was no material to proceed against accused nos. 6 and 7. Therefore it did not issue process against them. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application no. 51/2009 in the District Court at Panaji. By its order dated 22nd January, 2010 the District Court dismissed the revision application observing that the learned trial Judge has rightly held that there is prima facie evidence for proceeding against the petitioners and accused no. 8 under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant in the case is a Public Charitable Trust by name Sanathan Sanstha. There were series of articles published in Marathi weekly "Chitralekha" which got circulated in the State of Maharashtra and Goa. According to the complainant the weekly though published and printed in Mumbai has vide circulation not just in State of Maharashtra but also in the State of Goa. The complainant had examined its managing trustee in verification of the complaint and another witness, a resident of Panaji who had purchased the weekly "Chitralekha" from Varsha Book Stall situated in front of Azad Maidan Panaji. 4. Copies of defamatory articles published in the magazine and their translation in English have been annexed to the petition. 1 have gone through the same and am of the opinion that articles can be said to be perverse defamatory. In these circumstances order of issuance of process by the trial Court and confirmation of that order by the Sessions Court cannot be faulted with. 5. Mr. 1 have gone through the same and am of the opinion that articles can be said to be perverse defamatory. In these circumstances order of issuance of process by the trial Court and confirmation of that order by the Sessions Court cannot be faulted with. 5. Mr. Asim Sarode, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the institutions referred to in the articles are Hindu Jana Jagruti Samiti from Santa Cruz and Sanathan Sanstha from Panvel. Respondent no.1 has not been specifically named in any of the articles. According to him Sanathan Sanstha from Panvel is an association separate from respondent no.1. Both these institutions being independent bodies with separate registrations the respondent herein can have no cause to file criminal complaint. Respondent no. 1 on the other hand claims that founder of both the associations is same. Whether Sanathan Sanstha mentioned in the article is respondent no.1 herein or some other Sanstha by the same name would be a matter of trial. Such claim constitute defence of the petitioners on merit of the prosecution. That defence is not to be looked into at the time of issuance of process or while considering an application for quashing of the proceedings. Since articles published by the petitioners are prima facie defamatory, there can be no quashing of the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.