Avinash Chopra vs Mohan Singh Minhas and Sanjeev Kumar

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 12.9.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 4, Mandi and order dated 26.6.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Mandi in case titled as Mohan Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar, now pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Mandi. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint, u/s 500 IPC against respondent No. 2 and Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 4, Mandi on 12.9.2006 issued process to Sanjeev Kumar and Avinash Chopra, Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari for committing offence, punishable u/s 500 IPC. Avinash Chopra filed an application for recalling the order dated 12.9.2006 and dropping the proceedings initiated against him, but that application was rejected by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Mandi on 26.6.2012. In these circumstances, the petition has been filed, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in case No. 26-II/2006, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1., Mandi.

The respondent No. 1 in the complaint dated 20.3.2006 has impleaded Sanjeev Kumar and Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari as an accused. In preliminary evidence on 3.4.2006, he examined himself and produced certain documents. The respondent No. 1 filed an application dated 14.7.2006 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for again appearing as his own witness. This application was allowed on 3.8.2006. The respondent No. 1 again examined himself on 12.9.2006 and stated that accused No. 2 Avinash Chopra was the Editor of Punjab Kesari Newspaper who without verification had published false news. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 4 on 12.9.2006 summoned respondent No. 1 and petitioner for committing offence punishable, u/s 500 IPC, as noticed above. The application for recalling this order has been dismissed on 26.6.2012.

It emerges from the material on record that complaint was filed against Sanjeev Kumar and Chief Editor, but before issuing the process an application, u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed and respondent No. 1 again examined himself. The respondent No. 1 in his statement on 12.9.2006 has stated that Avinash Chopra was the Editor of Punjab Kesari. In the application, u/s 311 Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 1 has stated that he may be allowed to depose only to the extent that name of accused No. 2 the then Editor was Avinash Chopra. There are inherent contradictions in the application, u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and the complaint. The accused No. 2 is the Chief Editor and not the Editor. Avinash Chopra or Editor are not the accused in the complaint filed u/s 500 IPC.

The Editor or Avinash Chopra have not been impleaded as accused, u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Simply by moving an application, u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and stating that respondent No. 1 intends to depose that accused No. 2 the then Editor was Avinash Chopra, the foundation of the complaint will not change. In the complaint only Sanjeev Kumar and Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari are the accused. The respondent No. 1 has not filed any application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., for impleading Avinash Chopra as an accused in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has erred in law in issuing process against Avinash Chopra, who was not an accused in the complaint either as Chief Editor or in his individual capacity. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The complaint case No. 26-II/2006 u/s 500 IPC pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (1), Mandi is quashed against Avinash Chopra only. The respondents shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Mandi on 3.10.2012. The record be sent back to the trial court so as to reach well before the date fixed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of in view of disposal of main petition.