Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1485 (RAJ)

SHYAM BABU PAREEK v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-07-05

VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

body2017
ORDER : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Niwaran)-cum-Additional Sessions Court, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 255/2005 whereby order dated 24.8.2004 regarding rejection of a complaint No. 26/2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate concerned with the direction that after perusing complaint and evidence recorded by the complaint pass a legal order as directed hereinabove and take cognizance against the petitioners in the instant matter for offence under section 500 IPC and proceed further as per law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that private respondent submitted a complaint on 13.7.2004 before the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur against 9 persons, including the petitioners in the instant matter, stating inter alia that they have published a wrong news in newspaper namely "Rajasthan Patrika" in Jaipur Edition on 9.4.2004, 10.4.2004 and 11.4.2004 against complaint and they have malign the name of the complaint, they wanted to extort the money and defame the complaint. Learned Magistrate recorded statement of the complaint and after considering all the material available gave a finding that there was no news by name against the complaint in Jaipur Edition of Rajasthan Patrika on 9.4.2004, 10.4.2004. So far as news published in Jaipur Edition on 11.4.2004 is concerned, learned Magistrate observed that the complaint has not stated in his complaint that the news published is not true. As a result, learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance against anybody vide order dated 24.8.2004. On revision by private respondent herein, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order has observed that so far as news published in Jaipur Edition of 11.4.2004 of Rajasthan Patrika is concerned, it has tarnished image of complaint in the eye of public at large and there is no evidence that such news was published in public interest. Therefore, the offences under section 500 and section 500 read with section 120B IPC are prima facie made out and vide impugned order remitted the matter back to the Magistrate with the direction to take cognizance and proceed as per law. 3. I have gone through all the material available on record and considered the rival submissions. 4. Therefore, the offences under section 500 and section 500 read with section 120B IPC are prima facie made out and vide impugned order remitted the matter back to the Magistrate with the direction to take cognizance and proceed as per law. 3. I have gone through all the material available on record and considered the rival submissions. 4. The news appeared in Jaipur Edition on 11.4.2004 of Rajasthan Patrika has been exhibited by complaint as Ex. P 3/1. I have gone through the statement of private respondent recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 by learned Magistrate. In this statement nowhere private respondent has stated that the news in question is false and he has not stated even a single word about any criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioners. 5. In view of above, I find the order passed by the revisional court without any foundation, incorrect, against the principles of law and improper which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.1.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Nawaran)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur is quashed and aside.