Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 87 (UTT)

Pankaj Baurai v. D. S. Chauhan

2019-02-15

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Present criminal miscellaneous application, under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed quashing the summoning order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun; judgment and order dated 05.07.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 2483 of 2011 D.S.Chauhan vs. Uttarakhand Aaj and another under section 500 and 501 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. In the present case complainant in question, has been filed by the complainant against the petitioners under sections 500 and 501 IPC. Case in brief is that on 16.11.2011, news in regard to the irregularity committed by the respondent was published by the petitioner no. 2 (weekly newspaper circulating in Dehradun) in the newspaper “Uttarakhand Aaj” to which respondent filed complainant under section 500 and 501 IPC against the petitioners alleging that due to publication of false news in the newspaper reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the public and his relatives had been lowered. 3. In support of his case, respondent examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witness Shakti Vardhan Nautiyal under section 202 Cr.P.C., impugned summoning order dated 25.11.2011 was passed. The summoning order was challenged by the petitioners before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in criminal revision no. 199 of 2011, Pankaj Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, but same was dismissed by the Session Judge, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2012. Hence, this petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that news item was published by the petitioners in the public interest and good faith. It is further submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed the alleged offence. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint filed by the complainant under section 500 and 501 IPC. The trial court took cognizance under sections 500 and 501 IPC by the order dated 25.11.2011, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun 10. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint filed by the complainant under section 500 and 501 IPC. The trial court took cognizance under sections 500 and 501 IPC by the order dated 25.11.2011, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Foremost, principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. But, where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 in Para 28 of the said ruling has held as under:- “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 12. I find no illegality or perversity or error of law in the orders impugned passed by the courts below and there seems to be no miscarriage of justice committed by the courts below. 13. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The matter is pending since 2011 and proceeding of criminal trial had stayed by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Magistrate concerned shall explore all possibility to decide the criminal case no. 2483 of 2011 expeditiously in accordance with law. Unnecessary adjournment shall be avoided. 15. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, accordingly.