Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 461 (JK)

Sanjay Gupta v. Sidharth Manhas

2014-11-21

TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J.:- 1. Through the medium of petition-in-hand, petitioner is seeking quashment of process issued by the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu vide order dated 22.01.2011 in a complaint titled Sidharth Manhas v. Sanjay Gupta and others. It is contended that petitioner is Editor-in-Chief of daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran". In every State of India, there are separate Resident Editors, who are responsible for selection and publication of the news items, whereas the petitioner is only responsible for general policy of daily and various other publications of the said newspaper. It is further contended that for Jammu and Kashmir State, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma is looking after the affairs of the publication, printing and editing and is also registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. It is mentioned in every daily Edition that every news item published in the Edition, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, who is Editor of the newspaper, is responsible for the same. 2. Further, contention of the petitioner is that on 18th of December, 2010 a news was received by the reporter of the "Dainik Jagran" publication through Shri Arun Jamwal, SHO Police Station, Katra that a lady was abducted by three miscreants by stopping her Scooty and took her at Katra in a Hotel where father-in-law of said lady reached in the said Hotel by following the Car bearing registration No. JK02K-1205. After reaching, he inquired from the visitors registered and then found that a room was booked in the name of one Sanjay resident of Kishtwar. It is contended that said matter was reported by SHO, Police Station, Katra that father-in-law, namely, Darshan identified the accused persons and on the basis of information provided by the SHO, said news was published. 3. It is contended that said matter was reported by SHO, Police Station, Katra that father-in-law, namely, Darshan identified the accused persons and on the basis of information provided by the SHO, said news was published. 3. Sidharth Manhas (respondent herein) has filed complaint under Section 500 RPC before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu which was transferred to the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, JMIC, Jammu It is contended in the complaint that he received a call from one of his friends that a news item has been published in the newspaper "Dainik Jagran" wherein it is stated that a married lady of Miran Sahib has been kidnapped by three youths and has been recovered from a Hotel in Katra by the father-in-law of the kidnapped lady and it is also stated that the father-in-law of the kidnapped lady also thrashed one Sidarth Manhas alias Tinku involved in the kidnapping. On hearing this, respondent was shocked and has filed a complaint under Section 500 RPC before the trial Court, who after hearing issued process in the Complaint against the accused persons vide order dated 22.01.2011. 4. It is further argued that respondent is a respectable law abiding citizen and at present working as Marketing Manager in M/s. Jamkash Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that after publication of the imputation not only the respondent, but all the members of his family have been defamed and harmed as their reputation has been lowered down and tarnished in the Society. The old parents are in trauma and whole family is disturbed and feeling unnecessary harassment by the imputation published in the newspaper, which has lowered them in the Society. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as order impugned. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed against three persons, i.e., (i) petitioner being Director of "Dainik Jagran" Publication, (ii) Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, who is Printer and Editor of the "Dainik Jagran" and (iii) Mr. Arun Jamwal, SHO, Police Station, Katra. It is contended by the petitioner that it is automatic news being issued by the Government Agency, i.e., SHO, Police Station, Katra, who gave the information and it was published bonafidely in good faith for the general awareness of Society about the criminal activities of bad elements and exploitation of women folk. Arun Jamwal, SHO, Police Station, Katra. It is contended by the petitioner that it is automatic news being issued by the Government Agency, i.e., SHO, Police Station, Katra, who gave the information and it was published bonafidely in good faith for the general awareness of Society about the criminal activities of bad elements and exploitation of women folk. It is further contended that under the Press and Publication Registration Act, only Abhimanyu Sharma is responsible for selection of news and any consequences of publication, but the learned trial Court without recording personal satisfaction has issued the process in the complaint against the petitioner as well. 7. The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint is that he being the Editor-in-Chief of newspaper "Dainik Jagran" is responsible for selection of news items to be published in his paper. Further, the allegation of respondent-complainant is that by publishing defamatory news item in the newspaper "Dainik Jagran", the petitioner along with two others, namely, Mr. Abhimanu Sharma, Editor of the newspaper and Arun Jamwal, SHO, Police Station, Katra have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 RPC. Learned trial Court after recording statements of the complainant and respondent and two other witnesses on the pre-summoning stage has come to the conclusion that prima-facie an offence under Section 500 RPC is made out against the accused including the petitioner herein. 8. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has challenged order of issuance of process dated 22.01.2011 in the complaint through the medium of petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and also prayed for quashing of the complaint on the grounds set out in it. 9. The only ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that Abhimanu Sharma is a Printer and Publisher of newspaper namely, "Dainik Jagran" and is a person only responsible for selection and publication of the news item in the paper published from Jammu and Kashmir The petitioner being National Editor-in-Chief of the Paper "Dainik Jagran has, therefore nothing to do with the selection of either news item or its publication. It is also contended by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not applied its mind before issuing process in the complaint and order impugned does not contain any reason on the basis of which learned trial court arrived at his/her satisfaction with regard to the prima-facie case made out in the complaint for issuance of process. 10. It is also contended by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not applied its mind before issuing process in the complaint and order impugned does not contain any reason on the basis of which learned trial court arrived at his/her satisfaction with regard to the prima-facie case made out in the complaint for issuance of process. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner is an Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper "Dainik Jagran and, therefore has direct control on its publication through out the country including State of Jammu and Kashmir. He further contended that it is true that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir other accused, namely, Abhimanu Sharma is Editor and it is because of this reason he too has been arrayed as party accused Similarly, Abhimanu Sharma, other accused local Editor does not absolve the petitioner of his overall responsibility with regard to publication I is also contended that all the news items published in the paper are presumed to be within the knowledge of the petitioner as per general policy of publication of the newspaper concerned. 11. The complaint, preliminary statements and the news items in particular when read together do furnish the requisite material on the basis of will learned trial Court could have arrived at the requisite satisfaction with regard to prima-facie commission of offence punishable under Section 500 RPC. 12. Remedy under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- "(i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C.; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and (iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice." 13. The Apex Court in Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka 2008 AIR SCW 1003, and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav, AIR 2010 SC 201 while laying down the tests, has also held that the remedy under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C. of Central Code) and inherent power should not be exercised by the Courts in a routine manner, rather has to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and in rarest of rare cases. 14. 14. Applying the aforesaid tests in the present case, it can be safely said that in such cases inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be exercised and the parties can well bring on record and argue before the trial Court. Parties can satisfy the trial Court whether publication was in good faith or malafides or it lowered down and harmed the reputation or this falls within any exception. This all is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into here. 15. Viewed thus, this Court do not deem proper to interfere to quash the complaint under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. as it is well settled that inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary jurisdiction and is required to be exercised in rarest of rare case. Instant case viewed from all angles does not come within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercise of extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 16. In the given circumstances, I find that there is nothing on record to quash the order of the trial Court at its cognizance stage as otherwise also as already said, the petitioner herein has every right to bring on record and argue before the trial Court whatever defence he is taking herein. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with connected Cr.M.A. Registry to send back the record of the trial Court along with copy of this order.