Bansi Lal Gupta vs Santosh Dogra and Others

Sunil Hali, J.—A complaint under sections 500,501 and 502 RPC was filed before the trial court against the petitioner and four other

respondents. The genesis of the complaint reveals that accused No. 1 to 5 in their Newspaper Early Times dated 31.5.2003 levelled an allegation

that the Proprietor of JK Public School Kunjwani, Jammu is involved in flesh trading and has been supplying some female teachers and staff

members to entertain higher ups in bureaucratic circle for his business interests. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the woman who was

photographed nude with Gopal Arya Mission Proprietor Ashok Mahajan, was also a teacher of JK Public School. This was done to blackmail

Ashok Mahajan. On this complaint coming up process u/s 500, 501, 502 Cr.P.C. was issued and the accused persons were summoned. Against

this process, a revision was taken up before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Following grounds were taken up before the 3rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu:

(i) That the trial Magistrate had committed an error in entertaining a joint complaint made by respondents No. 1 to 9 and that too in the

representative capacity.

(ii) That perusal of compliant and the statements recorded on oath would reveals that no ground was made out to issue process against the

accused persons. The order does not disclose the reasons on the basis whereof process has been issued.

(iii) That the complaint is not maintainable as none of the respondents are alleged to have been personally aggrieved with the news item and the

news item did not say anything regarding the person of any of the respondents No. 1 to 9.

The revisional court dismissed revision petition on the ground that no reasons are required for issuing process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate

can take cognizance of offence once there are sufficient grounds for proceeding in the matter. There is no requirement of giving reasons for issuing

such a process. Revision petition arises out of an order which is interlocutory in nature and the revisional court cannot interfere against such order.

It is against this order of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge that the present petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. Thakur learned Counsel for the petitioner has said that the present complaint has been filed in a representative capacity through one Shri

Avinash Mahajan. He has referred to Section 198-A of RPC which contemplates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapters

19 and 21 of RPC except upon a complaint made by some person who is aggrieved. Proviso to said section states that some other person can file

a complaint on behalf of the complainant provided the complainant is under the age of 18 years or is an idiot, or lunatic or suffers from illness or

infirmity. Second ground raised by Mr. Thakur is that the complaint has been filed against accused No. 3,4 and 1 who could not be proceeded

against under the Press Council Act. It is argued that they are not liable under the Act for any material which is published in the newspaper. It is

duty of the Editor alone to suffer consequences of any defamatory material published in the paper.

I have heard the arguments of Mr. Thakur. It is necessary to examine the contents of complaint. The news item published on 31.5.2003 clearly

mentions that the proprietor of JK Public School Shri Raj Daluja has been supplying some female teachers and staff members to entertain higher

ups in bureaucratic circle for his business interests. News items further reveals that the woman who was nude photographed with Ashok Mahajan

was also a teacher of JK Public School. To blackmail Ashok Majahan, Raj Daluja alias Raji Dalai and his henchmen forced him to pose with this

teacher in nude and got them photographed.

The import of aforesaid allegation clearly reveals that some teachers of JK Public School are being used in flesh trade by proprietor of the

school. It is also mentioned in the news item that the present complainants are school teachers working in JK Public School. This is clearly

revealed in first para of complaint. The imputation is clear and vivid that some teachers are involved in flesh trading, but their names have not been

disclosed. All the complainants have apprehension that imputation has been directed towards them and they are certainly aggrieved of this

allegation. To say that they are not aggrieved persons would not be the correct interpretation of law. Definition of defamation is indicated in Section

499 RPC which is quoted herein below:

Defamation. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any

imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such

person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanations.. .1...2..3..4.

First Exception.- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. It is not defamation to impute anything which is true

concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a

question of fact.

Second Exception.- Public conduct of public servants- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of

a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Third Exception.- Conduct of any person touching any public question-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever

respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct,

and no further.

Fourth exception.- Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.- 4t is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of

a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Fifth Exception.- Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others

concerned-. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been

decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent in any such case, or respecting the character of

such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Scanning through this definition it clearly indicates that if any publication is made concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having

reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person would amount defamation.

In the present case the complainants have every reason to believe that this imputation will harm their reputation. The present complaint

admittedly has been filed by all the complainants who have signed their vakalatnama and it is not a complaint under representative capacity. On the

face of it, I do not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Thakur in saying that present complaint cannot be filed in the present form and there is no

allegation leveled against the complainants. The second argument of Mr. Thakur is that accused 1,3 and 4 cannot be prosecuted for the said

publication. The publication of 31st May 2003 clearly reveals that the same has been investigated by respondents No. 3 and 4. There is no need to

look into the import of Press Council Act. It is on the basis of investigation conducted by the Journalists that the present news item has been

published . Press Council Act nowhere debars prosecution against a person on whose report news item has been published. Reliance placed by

Mr. Thakur on a judgment reported in A.K. Jain v. State of Sikkim and Anr. AIR 1992 Sikk 20 does not apply to the present case. In the case

(supra) process was issued against the Chairman who did not have the knowledge of publication of news item. In the present case said accused

persons are originators of the news item and it is on their reporting that it has been published. So on both the counts petition is not maintainable.

Same is dismissed. Let file of trial court be sent back.

Disposed of.