JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.- CRMC No.224/2013 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint titled “Ch. Lal Singh vs. Mohinder Verma and others” under sections 500, 501, 502, 504, 506 and 120-B RPC pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and also the order dated 09.07.2013 by virtue of which the learned trial court has issued the process against the petitioners for commission of offences under sections 501 and 502 RPC. 2. It is stated that the respondent filed a false and frivolous baseless complaint against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners published news items in the newspaper’s edition dated 09.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 against the respondent. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 09.07.2013, after recording the statement of the respondent and one witness, namely, Jatinder Singh, issued the process against the petitioners for commission of offences under sections 501 and 502 RPC. It is further stated that a PIL bearing number WPPIL No. 19 of 2011, was initially filed against the daughters of Taj Mohi-ud-Din and in the said PIL, an application came to be filed by Prof S. K. Bhalla regarding the illegal and unauthorised possession of the respondent over the land, that was registered as CMA No. 276 of 2012. The Division Bench passed the orders from time to time and the same used to be carried by all the newspapers in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. During the pendency of the said PIL, then MLA Kathua, Sh. Charanjit Singh filed another application bearing CMA No. 597 of 2013 and prayed for permitting him to intervene in the said matter and place on record the facts those were within his knowledge, particularly the manner in which the honest and dedicated officer i.e. the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Kathua was got transferred prematurely. The Hon’ble Division Bench Court passed the orders on 08.03.2013 and another order on 25.04.2013, which were carried in the newspapers on the next day. 3. The Hon’ble Division Bench Court passed the orders on 08.03.2013 and another order on 25.04.2013, which were carried in the newspapers on the next day. 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the criminal proceedings of the above title complaint as well as the order of issuance of process, on the following grounds: a. That from the perusal of the order, the complainant and the pre-summoning statement, no offences under sections 501 and 502 RPC are made out. b. That it was obligatory for the trial court to go through the contents of the newspaper and sanctity of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 08.03.2013 and 25.04.2013 and was also required to see the import of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and thereafter apply its mind and consider the contents of complaint, which from the bare perusal of the order, the trial court has not done and has issued a process in a casual and mechanical manner. c. That from a bare perusal of the news item, no derogatory/defamatory news has been published against the respondent and the complaint is hit by section 198-B (1) Cr.P.C, as the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of an alleged offence of defamation in respect of public servant. d. That no case is made out against the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated by the respondent only to harass, pressurise the petitioners to stop publishing the court orders passed in WPPIL No. 19/2011 and CMA No. 276/2012. 4. Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has issued the process against the petitioners in a mechanical manner and without even perusing the contents of the complaint. He further argued that the petitioners published the contents of the applications those were filed by the applicants, namely, Prof S.K. Bhalla and MLA Charanjit Singh but the respondent did not take any action against the said applicants. He further argued that petitioners are not guilty of committing any offence as the petitioners were performing their professional duties and had simply published the proceedings of the PIL and respondent has nowhere denied that in the said PIL, no allegations were levelled against him those were published by the petitioners. Mr. He further argued that petitioners are not guilty of committing any offence as the petitioners were performing their professional duties and had simply published the proceedings of the PIL and respondent has nowhere denied that in the said PIL, no allegations were levelled against him those were published by the petitioners. Mr. Wazir also laid much stress upon the contents of the CMA No. 276 of 2012 and CMA No. 597 of 2013. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Singh Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has issued the process against the petitioner after deriving the satisfaction from the statements of the respondent as well as one witness that prima facie offences are made out against the petitioners. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The respondent is prosecuting the petitioners for the publication of the news items in their newspaper “Daily Excelsior” of edition dated 09.03.2013 and 26.04.2013. 8. A perusal of the news item published on 09.03.2013 reveals that it begins with the heading “Congress MP’s Trust served notice for possessing land beyond permissible limit under Agrarian Reforms Act” and in the body of the news item it has been mentioned that in a development of far reaching consequences in the public interest litigation highlighting encroachment of land by politicians and bureaucrats by abusing their status, a Trust run by a Congress Member Parliament from Kathua, Udhampur, Doda Parliamentary Constituency Ch. Lal Singh has been served notice by the Kathua District Administration for possessing land beyond the permissible limit under Agrarian Reforms Act in Village Krandi Khurd of Hiranagar Tehsil, District Kathua, while as the State Government has issued directions for evicting the encroachers from 92 Kanals and 6 Marlas of State land in the possession of different persons in the Village Krandi Khurd. In the said news item, it is further mentioned that R.B. Educational Trust run by Member of Parliament Ch. Lal Singh owns more than 300 kanals of land as per information provided by Tehsildar Hiranagar in an application filed under Right to Information (RTI) Act. 9. Similarly, in the news item published on 26.04.2013 it has been mentioned that the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Puneet Sharma was victimised and prematurely transferred at the instance of Member of Parliament Ch. Lal Singh owns more than 300 kanals of land as per information provided by Tehsildar Hiranagar in an application filed under Right to Information (RTI) Act. 9. Similarly, in the news item published on 26.04.2013 it has been mentioned that the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Puneet Sharma was victimised and prematurely transferred at the instance of Member of Parliament Ch. Lal Singh for daring to provide information to the petitioner in response to RTI application and also for directing the closure of brick kiln of Raghubir Singh alias Babbi (younger brother of Member of Parliament) operating illegally at Village Mahi Chak, Kathua District. 10. The contention of the petitioners is that whatsoever was published by the petitioners in their newspaper was on the basis of the proceedings of the Court. The petitioners have placed on record the application moved by the Professor S. K. Bhalla bearing No. CMA No. 276/2012 in WPPIL No. 19/2011. In the title of the said application, the applicant had prayed for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 therein to retrieve/restore 92 kanals 6 Marlas of State land situated at Village Krandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua that is presently under the illegal and unauthorised possession of Ch. Lal Singh, Member of Parliament, Kathua, Udhampur and Doda Constituency as encroachment stands confirmed by the State Vigilance Organisation vide their communication No. SVO/06/PRK-63/05-SC/4605 dated 24.04.2006 and further directing Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister to file the action taken report pursuant to the report mentioned above. In the said application it has been pleaded by Professor S. K. Bhalla that on the complaint of one Col. V. S. Mangotra, the State Vigilance Organisation conducted an enquiry regarding the illegal/unauthorised occupation of 92 kanals and 6 marlas of State land situated at Village Krandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua by Ch. Lal Singh, Member of Parliament. The SVO in its enquiry indicted the illegal occupant Ch. Lal Singh and then Vigilance Commissioner vide communication (Supra) sent his report to the then Principal Secretary to then Chief Minister of J&K where a request was made for restoring the aforementioned 92 Kanals and 6 Marlas of State land from the unauthorised possession of Ch. Lal Singh. The SVO in its enquiry indicted the illegal occupant Ch. Lal Singh and then Vigilance Commissioner vide communication (Supra) sent his report to the then Principal Secretary to then Chief Minister of J&K where a request was made for restoring the aforementioned 92 Kanals and 6 Marlas of State land from the unauthorised possession of Ch. Lal Singh. Further in the said application, it was also mentioned that despite lapse of six years, the encroachment in question has not been removed as the occupant was highly influential being a Member of Parliament and a Former Health Minister of J&K. The local revenue agency in District Kathua appears to be under pressure of the said occupant as in response to application under RTI Act dated 14.05.2012, Tehsildar Hiranagar vide his reply dated 11.06.2012, expressed complete ignorance about the encroachment in question and took a u-turn to the findings of the State Vigilance Organisation. The Tehsildar Hiranagar just tried to confuse the issue at hand by taking the refuge that the possession of Ch. Lal Singh is not reflected in the revenue record of Village Krandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. It was further pleaded that Ch. Lal Singh and his family are in possession of huge chunk of land measuring 317 kanals 16 Marla at Village Krandi Khurd, mostly acquired through gift deeds and sale deeds by Smt. Kanta Andotra W/o Ch. Lal Singh and Ms. Kamia Andotra D/O Ch. Lal Singh. Simultaneously, it was stated by the applicant therein that to his information, The R. B. Educational Trust through its trustee Smt. Kanta Andotra W/o Ch. Lal Singh, Member of Parliament is running Delhi Public School from the aforesaid land and apart from Delhi Public School, the said trust under the patronage of Ch. Lal Singh has built a huge farm house, which is fully visible on spot. 11. The said application was filed by the applicant Professor S.K. Bhalla on 29.10.2012 as is evident from the Annexure “E” to the petition. So far as news item published in Daily Excelsior in its edition dated 09.03.2013 is concerned, this Court finds that the gist of the averments made by the applicant Professor S. K. Bhalla in CMA No. 276/2012 was published by the petitioners in their newspaper. 12. So far as news item published in Daily Excelsior in its edition dated 09.03.2013 is concerned, this Court finds that the gist of the averments made by the applicant Professor S. K. Bhalla in CMA No. 276/2012 was published by the petitioners in their newspaper. 12. Further in the said PIL, an application was also filed on 23.04.2013 by one Charanjit Singh s/o Kikar Singh, R/o VPO Janglote, Kathua, then Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) Kathua seeking intervention in aforesaid public interest litigation bearing No. WPPIL No. 19/2011 whereby the applicant intended to bring to the notice of the Court particularly the manner in which the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Shri Puneet Sharma, KAS was victimised and prematurely transferred at the instance of Hon’ble Member of Parliament Ch. Lal Singh for daring to provide information to Professor S. K. Bhalla in response to his RTI application and also directing the closure of Brick Kiln operating under the illegal occupation of Raghubir Singh at Village Mahi Chak, Kathua. In the said application, it was stated by the said applicant that during the pendency of the PIL, the writ petitioner has brought on record the manner in which Ch. Lal Singh, Hon’ble Member of Parliament Kathua, Udhampur-Doda Constituency has encroached upon 92 Kanals and 6 Marlas of State land situated at Village Krandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua and has converted the same into his farm house. It was also stated in the said application that it has also come on record that the Hon’ble Member of Parliament and his family members own land measuring 316 kanals excluding 92 kanals and 6 Marlas in his illegal possession. 13. The said information was supplied by the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Kathua to the writ petitioner in response to his RTI application. Most of the land acquired by the Hon’ble Member of Parliament and his family in the name of R. B. Educational Trust, is either by way of sale deed or gift deed. As a matter of fact, big chunk of land measuring more than 200 kanals is acquired by aforesaid Hon’ble Member of Parliament through device of gift deeds meaning thereby that the said land has been acquired by aforesaid Hon’ble Member Parliament without any consideration and without being liable to disclose the source of his income for acquiring such a big estate. It was also stated that the R. B. Educational trust has been created by the aforesaid Hon’ble Member of Parliament, in order to cover up his illegal acquisition of an estate measuring more than 316 kanals. Besides it was also stated that during May 2012, the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not available and the duties of Public Information Officer were being discharged by Mr. Puneet Sharma, KAS, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), a designated Assistant Public Information Officer. There was huge pressure on Mr. Puneet Sharma, not to disclose the correct information with regard to the landed property of the Hon’ble Member of Parliament concerned but the said Officer, who was young, honest and daring did not succumb to the pressure tactics applied by the Hon’ble Member of Parliament concerned and performed his duty of Public Information Officer strictly within the four corners of law. As the information disclosed was highly prejudicial to the interest of Hon’ble Member of Parliament, he abused the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and warned him of the dire consequences for having dared to take allegedly extra interest in collecting information against him. Further that the Hon’ble Member of Parliament Ch. Lal Singh instead of appreciating the efforts made by Mr. Puneet Sharma got annoyed with him for having dared to disclose the information regarding his landed property to the writ petitioner. During the same period, a complaint was received by Deputy Commissioner, Kathua that one Raghubir Singh was operating his brick kiln at Village Mahi Chak, Kathua illegally without getting the consent from the J&K State Pollution Control Board. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua authorised the Additional District Magistrate, Kathua Sh. Puneet Sharma to take action against the running of illegal brick kiln owned by Sh. Raghubir Singh in Village Mahi Chak of Kathua District. The Additional District Magistrate, Kathua, Mr. Puneet Sharma, directed closure of the illegal operation of the brick kiln run by Raghubir Singh. The owner of the brick kiln was none other than the close associate of the Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh and accordingly Mr. Raghubir Singh brought this matter to the notice of aforesaid Member of Parliament and must have requested him to teach a lesson to the then Asstt. Commissioner (Revenue). On the oral complaint of Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh, then Revenue Minister, Sh. Lal Singh and accordingly Mr. Raghubir Singh brought this matter to the notice of aforesaid Member of Parliament and must have requested him to teach a lesson to the then Asstt. Commissioner (Revenue). On the oral complaint of Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh, then Revenue Minister, Sh. Raman Bhalla, called a meeting of the then Revenue Secretary and the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Sh. Puneet Sharma, at his residence on 27.11.2012 at about 05:00 P.M. and in the said meeting, Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh as well as Sh. Raghubir Singh, the owner of the illegal brick kiln, were also present. Reportedly, the Member of Parliament abused the Assistant Commission (Revenue), Mr. Puneet Sharma in front of the then Hon’ble Revenue Minister, Mr. Raman Bhalla and the Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt. Revenue Department and warned him of dire consequences for daring to take action against his man-Sh. Raghubir Singh. Sh. Puneet Sharma continued to perform his duties within the bounds of law. With a view to get rid of the inconvenient Revenue Officer, the Member of Parliament ultimately succeeded in persuading then Revenue Minister, Mr. Raman Bhalla to transfer him out of the District Kathua and Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Kathua, Mr. Puneet Sharma was transferred and posted as Assistant Commissioner in the Settlement Organisation. It was also pleaded in the said application that Mr. Puneet Sharma could not complete even one year and was transferred out of the District obviously to please the Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh who belonged to a Party, which was the coalition partner in the Government. 14. Now, a perusal of the news item dated 26.04.2013 reveals that in this news item, the petitioner has mentioned about the contents of the application moved by Charanjit Singh then MLA, Kathua and it has been mentioned in the news item itself. The contention of the respondent was that Raghubir Singh alias Babbi has never been his younger brother and the petitioner falsely mentioned the same in order to defame the respondent-Ch. Lal Singh. 15. Though, in the news item, it has been mentioned Raghubir Singh alias Babbi as younger brother of Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh but in the CMA moved by MLA, Charanjit Singh, there is no mention of Babbi as brother of the Member of Parliament. Lal Singh. 15. Though, in the news item, it has been mentioned Raghubir Singh alias Babbi as younger brother of Member of Parliament, Ch. Lal Singh but in the CMA moved by MLA, Charanjit Singh, there is no mention of Babbi as brother of the Member of Parliament. Though, in the application it has been mentioned that Ragubir Singh is the close associate of Ch. Lal Singh. 16. Thus, the perusal of both the news items reveal that the petitioners have published the contents of the applications moved by the Professor S. K. Bhalla and Charanjit Singh, then MLA, Kathua, though, in the news item published on 26.04.2013 it has been wrongly mentioned that Raghubir Singh alias Babbi is brother of the Member of Parliament but the said statement cannot be considered to have been made by petitioner deliberately in order to defame the respondent. More so, the communication dated 24.04.2006 addressed by the Commissioner of Vigilance to the Principal Secretary to then Chief Minister J&K, also mentions the findings of the joint surprise check regarding the possession of the respondent over the land measuring 324 Kanals and 7 marlas in Village Karandi Khurd. If the name of brother of the respondent was wrongly mentioned in the news item, the respondent could have asked the petitioner to publish an errata/corrigendum to the same. More so, even if the allegations are taken to be true, as such, then the brother of the respondent had a cause of action to proceed against the petitioner for publishing his name falsely but he never chose to do so. 17. The petitioners were performing their professional duties being the correspondent, printer and owner of the newspaper – “Daily Excelsior” respectively. In view of the documents placed on record by the petitioners, such as, applications moved by Prof SK Bhalla, Ex. MLA Charanjit Singh, communication made by Vigilance Commissioner, it cannot be said that the petitioners published the news items mentioned above without any basis. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factum of filing the applications by Prof S.K. Bhalla and Ex. MLA Charanjit Singh, as also the communication addressed by the Commissioner of Vigilance. MLA Charanjit Singh, communication made by Vigilance Commissioner, it cannot be said that the petitioners published the news items mentioned above without any basis. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factum of filing the applications by Prof S.K. Bhalla and Ex. MLA Charanjit Singh, as also the communication addressed by the Commissioner of Vigilance. Whether the contents of the applications filed by the above mentioned persons were false or not, the said issue was the subject matter of the PIL and the petitioner has simply published the contents of the said applications and also about the proceedings of the court, and the publication of the said news items cannot be said to be a publication of defamatory statements by the petitioners. The respondent too could have asked the petitioner to publish his version as well but instead of doing the same, he launched the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and there seems to be a justification on the contention of the petitioners that the same was done so as to stop the petitioners from continuing the publishing of the proceedings of the Public interest litigation. 18. In order to bring home the offence under section 499 RPC, the first requirement is making or publishing of any imputation concerning a person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. The status of the respondent being the politician is not in dispute and also this is not in dispute that Division Bench was seized of the matter regarding the illegal occupation of the State land. In his preliminary statement, the respondent has simply raised his grievance with regard to the allegations of the encroachment of the State land by the respondent, published in the newspaper in its edition dated 09.03.2013. This is also admitted fact that the respondent was also a party in the said litigation and whether the respondent was dragged in the litigation without any basis or not, is a secondary issue so far as present controversy is concerned. This is also admitted fact that the respondent was also a party in the said litigation and whether the respondent was dragged in the litigation without any basis or not, is a secondary issue so far as present controversy is concerned. The respondent has not brought on record any material so as to demonstrate that he had proceeded against the applicants, who laid a motion before the Division Bench and instead of initiating any proceedings against the said applicants who had levelled the allegations against the respondent whether true or false, the respondent chose to t5target the petitioners who had simply discharged their professional duties and had published the contents of the said applications and the proceedings of the court. Needless to say that the petitioners being the correspondent, printer and owner of the newspaper – “Daily Excelsior” respectively had every right to bring to the notice of their readers the day to day events and it includes the right to publish about the conduct, behaviour of the public figures. 19. That the learned trial Court also has failed in its duty to consider the question of issue a process in accordance with law laid down by Apex court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 , where the Apex Court has held as under: “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 20. That the learned trial court should have directed the complainant/respondent to produce the record i.e. the applications, orders passed by the Division Bench and the various reports and had the learned trial court done so, the whole truth would have come on record as the petitioner did not publish the news item without any basis but on the basis of the pleadings filed before the Division Bench. 21. In M. N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 , the Apex Court while quashing the proceedings held as under: “21. In our considered view, criminal law has been set in motion by the complainant to harass the bank officers needlessly and to wreak personal vengeance in order to bring them under pressure not to further prosecute the proceedings already initiated by the appellants against the complainant on behalf of the Bank. 23. Had the learned SDJM perused the complaint properly he would have realised that the complainant himself had made a mention about the lodging of the FIR for criminal breach of trust and other offences against the respondent complainant and others. Had he looked into the complaint properly, he would have certainly asked the complainant to furnish a copy of the said FIR.” 22. Further Fourth exception to section 499 RPC provides that it is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice or of the result of any such proceedings. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner falls within the exception Four to section 499. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Apex Court in Vinod Dua vs Union of India and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 414, where in the Apex Court while relying upon number of its earlier decision quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR on the ground that the statements of the petitioner were covered by Exception-2 and Exception-3 of section 499 IPC. 23. 23. In view of what has been said above, the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint titled “Ch. Lal Singh Vs. Mohinder Verma and others” under sections 501 and 502 RPC pending before the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kathua and also the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kathua are quashed. CRMC No: 496/2014 24. In the present petition, the petitioner, who is editor-in-chief of daily publication “State Times”, has prayed for the quashing of the complaint titled “Ch. Lal Singh vs. Raj Daluja” filed by the respondent before the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Kathua and also the order dated 09.07.2013, whereby process for commission of offences under sections 501 and 502 RPC has been issued against the petitioner in above mentioned complaint. 25. It is stated that ‘Daily Excelsior Newspaper’ in its edition dated 09.03.2013 published the news item with regard to the illegal occupation of the land by respondent’s trust on the basis of Public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to have received a news item from the Information Department with regard to the retrieval of the land by the revenue department and taking into consideration the said news item, the petitioner while discharging his duties and in the public interest published the news item in its edition dated 10.03.2013. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said news item was also published in other news papers, namely, ‘Daily Excelsior’, ‘Punjab Kesri’ and ‘Early Times’ having circulation in the State but after four months from the date of the publication of the news item, the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and by virtue of order dated 09.07.2013, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua issued the process under sections 501 and 502 RPC against the petitioner. 26. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the complaint as also the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the trial court on the similar grounds, on the basis of which the petitioners in CRMC No: 224/2013 prayed for the quashing of the criminal proceedings as well as the order of issuance of process against the petitioners therein, as such, I do not deem it necessary to reproduce the grounds urged by the petitioner herein. 27. Mr. R. K, Jain learned senior counsel argued on the similar lines as of Mr. Wazir and Mr. 27. Mr. R. K, Jain learned senior counsel argued on the similar lines as of Mr. Wazir and Mr. Kotwal too reiterated his arguments as advanced by him in the connected petition. 28. In the instant case, the grievance of the respondent is with regard to publication of news item by the petitioner in his newspaper of edition dated 10.03.2013 with the heading “92 kanal land encroached by MP’s Trust retrieved”. The claim of the respondent was that he had never been in unauthorised possession of any State land, as such, he was never evicted from any such land but despite that the petitioner published said news item. 29. A perusal of the news item reveals that the petitioner has published photographs of revenue officers while they were demarcating 92 kanal encroached land in District Kathua. While publishing the said news item, the petitioner has also made a reference to the status report submitted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Bhan in April 2006 stating that 92 kanal land was in the illegal possession of respondent. The note of the communication by the Commissioner of Vigilance has already been taken by this Court in the connected petition. Further in the news item, the petitioner has published the proceedings of the court, those have not been denied by the respondent. 30. As the controversy involved in the present petition is identical to the connected petition, though in the instant petition issue is with regard to the publication of one news item only, as such, for the reasons mentioned in the detail in the connected petition, this petition too is allowed and the proceedings of the complaint titled “Ch. Lal Singh Vs. Raj Daluja” filed by the respondent before the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate Court, Kathua and also order dated 09.07.2013 whereby process under section 501, 502 RPC has been issued against the petitioner are quashed.