Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 265 (UTT)

Lalit Kumar v. Prem Matiyani

2016-06-24

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Since, both these criminal misc. applications are arising out of one and same criminal proceedings. They were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. The applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1138 of 2013 is the Editor-in-Chief of weekly news paper “News Hon” published from Gurgaon, Haryana, whereas applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1195 of 2013 is the Publisher & Printer of the said news paper. On a complaint made by the respondent, which has been registered as Complaint Case No. 44 of 2013, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 CrPC and his witnesses under Section 202 CrPC has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants for the offence under Section 500 IPC by summoning order dated 20.04.2013. The allegation against the applicants is that they got published a false and incorrect news article along with photograph of the respondent in the said news paper on 05.10.2012 in order to defame the reputation of the respondent. The article was totally defamatory and humiliating and published in order to ruin his personal and social status. Against the said summoning order, the applicant Lalit Kumar filed a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 11.09.2013. Now, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the applicants by filing Criminal Misc. Applications under Section 482 CrPC. 3. Both the applicants admit the publication in the newspaper, however, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that no defamation is made out in view of first, second and third exceptions given in Section 499 IPC. There is another submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that intention to defame the reputation of a person is an essential ingredient and the applicants had no intention to defame the reputation of the respondent. 4. Nothing is being said by this Court at this stage, as these grounds the applicants can take only before the learned Magistrate while making submission that the do not come under the ambit of defamation, as they actually fall under the exception clause. This is not a stage where the exception as claimed by the applicants can be examined. 4. Nothing is being said by this Court at this stage, as these grounds the applicants can take only before the learned Magistrate while making submission that the do not come under the ambit of defamation, as they actually fall under the exception clause. This is not a stage where the exception as claimed by the applicants can be examined. As of now there has been no abuse of the process of law which may call for any interference of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. In fact, this Court is of the considered view that in order to secure the ends of justice, the applicants must first appear before the court below. 5. In view of the aforesaid, both the criminal misc. applications are dismissed. Let the trial proceed before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. It is further directed that since this matter has already been delayed, the proceedings shall go on without any unnecessary delay in the court below. 6. Interim orders, if any, are also vacated.