JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing the criminal complaint filed by respondent Ali Mohammad Rather under Section 500 RPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bijbehara, titled as, Ali Mohammad Rather v. Fayaz Ahmad Kaloo. The Facts as averred in the petition are that a few months ago the petitioner being Editor of English daily newspaper Greater Kashmir as well as Urdu newspaper Kashmir Uzma exposed paper leakage scam being conducted by the Board of Professional Entrance Examination after coming to know that papers of Professional Common Entrance Tests were being sold against huge monetary considerations by a well knit caucus thereby playing with the lives of meritorious candidates. It is averred that this Court suo motu treated the said news as Public Interest Litigation and directed the Crime Branch to take investigation of the case. It is averred that thereafter Current News Service (CNS) circulated a news item through e-mail on 19.11.2013 to a number of newspapers agencies including the agency of petitioner, wherein it had been mentioned that another broker, namely, Ali Mohammad Rather, respondent herein, who is a retired teacher, has supposedly amassed huge wealth and he also helped his relatives to qualify the Common Entrance Test. It is averred that although the said press report was carried by many news agencies including the newspapers of petitioner on the basis of press report circulated by recognized news agency CNS, yet the respondent filed criminal complaint only against the petitioner under Section 500 RPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bij behara with mala fide intentions to harass and pressurize him so as to restrain him from publishing the proceedings and investigation reports in this matter. It is further averred that the investigation of BOPEE scandal is being carried by the Crime Branch and the same is being monitored by a Division Bench of this Court, in which learned senior counsel for petitioner, Mr. B.A. Bashir has also been appointed as amicus curie. So whatever has come forth on account of such investigation and the news items circulated by CNS, the petitioner along with other news agencies has only reported the same, therefore, no question arises to intentionally defame or injuring the reputation of respondent. 2. B.A. Bashir has also been appointed as amicus curie. So whatever has come forth on account of such investigation and the news items circulated by CNS, the petitioner along with other news agencies has only reported the same, therefore, no question arises to intentionally defame or injuring the reputation of respondent. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the rival contentions meticulously. 3. Learned trial Court on consideration of the complaint and the preliminary statement of complainant, respondent herein, as well as the witness, found that a prima facie case for having committed offence punishable under Section 500 RPC has been made out against the petitioner and, accordingly, issued process against the petitioner. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner pleaded that the impugned order summoning the petitioner is bad in law as the allegation levelled in the complaint coupled with the evidence led by respondent No. 1 herein in the inquiry do not make out a case under Section 500 RPC, because being the news agency the petitioner along with other news agencies reported the news item in public interest which was supplied to them by a recognized news agency CNS, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner published the said news with the intention to defame the respondent. 5. On the other hand, it is pleaded on behalf of respondent that the news-in-question published by the petitioner is per se defamatory as the same had been published with the malafide intention to harm the reputation of respondent. 6. There can be no denial that the freedom of speech and expression, particularly of Press, is the foundation of a democratic set up. The freedom of expression of Press flows from the requirement that the citizens in a democratic set up should be sufficiently informed. In the matter of Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd., (1973) 3 All ER 54, Supreme Court observed that the freedom of expression has following four broad social purposes to serve: "(i) It helps an individual to attain self fulfillment. (ii) It assists in the discovery of truth. (iii) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making. (iv) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change." 7. (ii) It assists in the discovery of truth. (iii) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making. (iv) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change." 7. Every citizen has a right to freedom of speech subject to restriction as covered under Section 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Ventilation grievances to superior controlling authority against any officer in respect of an interest inversely suffered by a person does not fall within the ambit of Section 499 RPC to warrant punishment under Section 500 RPC. 8. No person, even a journalist, has an unfettered right to make defamatory statement about a person to a third person or persons or publish the same without lawful basis. This right of an individual was recognized by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3357 , wherein it was observed that reputation is an integral and important aspect of dignity of every individual. 9. In the instant case, reading of entire Article published in the news papers reveals that in feet the same was supplied by the Crime Branch officials to CNS News Agency. The said agency, thereafter, forwarded the same to other news agencies including the news agency of petitioner and they published the same in their news papers. Petitioner has also placed on record paper cuttings of various other newspapers wherein the same news item had been carried out against the respondent-complaint. However, the respondent has filed complaint only against the news agency of petitioner seeking to make him personally responsible for the offending news item. In such circumstances no malafide can be attributed to the petitioner as he was not the one who published the news-in-question but many other newspapers also reported the same news item. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner intentionally published the said news item in his paper to defame the good reputation of respondent-complainant. In absence of making other news agencies, which also reported the same news item, as accused before the trial Court by way of aforesaid complaint by the respondent, the said news item does not come within the definition of defamation in terms of Section 499 RPC. In absence of making other news agencies, which also reported the same news item, as accused before the trial Court by way of aforesaid complaint by the respondent, the said news item does not come within the definition of defamation in terms of Section 499 RPC. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the alleged accused. Thus, the judgments cited by learned counsel for respondent are not applicable to the case in hand. 10. In view of the above backdrop, the petition is allowed. The cognizance taken by the learned trial Court and the orders summoning the petitioner as accused are hereby set aside, resulting into the dismissal of aforesaid complaint. Send back the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment/order.