Pranoy Bordoloi And Anr vs State Of Assam And Anr

Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State

of Assam. Notice in respect of the present proceeding had been duly served on the respondent no. 2 in the year 2012 but none has appeared for the

respondent no. 2 till date.

This criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ and/or ‘the CrPC’, for short) has been

preferred seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no. C.R. 407C/2012 and the order dated 25.06.2012 passed therein by the

Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar (‘the trial court’, for short). By the order dated 25.06.2012, the learned

trial court after taking cognizance on the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 500/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and finding sufficient

ground for proceeding against the two petitioners, directed issuance of process for their appearance to stand in the trial of the Complaint Case no.

C.R. 407C/2012.

The complaint has been filed by the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the complainant’, at places, for easy reference) on

11.06.2012 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar arraigning the petitioner no. 1 as accused no. 1 and the

petitioner no. 2 as accused no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused no. 1’ and ‘the accused no. 2’ respectively).

In the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that he is the Cultural Secretary of one Sadar Lanka Kerumoni Basanta Utsav Udjapan Committee

(‘the Committee’, for short). It is mentioned that Sri Nipumoni Pathak and Sri Bappi Das are the Executive President and the Assistant

Secretary of the Committee. On 02.06.2012 and 03.06.2012, the Committee had organized a series of Bihu Programmes. A Bihu dance competition

was scheduled on 02.06.2012 and on 03.06.2012, various cultural programmes were scheduled. But on 03.06.2012, an incident of misbehaviour and

assault took place during the prize distribution ceremony and when the situation became worse, the complainant along with the witnesses named in the

complaint, went to Lanka Police Station. The cultural programmes scheduled for the day had to be cancelled. According to the complainant, a public

meeting was organized at Lanka on the next day at the instance of the local people. In the said meeting, a resolution was passed to the effect that the

complainant and the witnesses named in the complaint should be boycotted. The accusation of the complainant is to the effect that the two accused

persons had broadcasted a news item in the television channel, DY365 on 07.06.2012 wherein it was mentioned that Lanka Nagarik Sabha had

boycotted the complainant and the witnesses from every kind of social function. After watching the news item, the complainant came to know that the

persons shown in the news item were not the local people. One person amongst them made a statement that they came to protest against the boycott

of TET passed teachers. The contention of the complainant is that the accused persons had broadcasted the news item falsely by adding the contents

two different news items, unrelated to each other, with intention to lower the reputation of the complainant and the witnesses in the estimation of the

people.

On receipt of the complaint, the same has been registered and numbered as Complaint Case no. C.R. 407C/2012 and after registration, the

complaint was forwarded to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar for disposal. The learned trial court examined

the complainant under Section 200, CrPC on 22.06.2012. Thereafter, finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 500/34,

IPC made out against the accused persons the learned trial court issued process against the accused persons for their appearance to stand in the trial.

Aggrieved by the institution of the complaint case and the order taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioners have approached this Court

by this petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking the reliefs, indicated above.

One of the contentions made on behalf to the petitioners is that the alleged defamatory news item is stated to be broadcasted through a television

channel, DY365 on 07.06.2012. The accused no. 1 has been mentioned as the Executive Editor of DY365, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt.

Ltd., Guwahati and the accused no. 2 has been projected as the Reporter of DY365. It is contended that as the alleged defamatory news item was

broadcasted through the television channel, DY365, the criminal prosecution against the accused persons herein are not maintainable in the absence of

the company, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. which owns, runs and operates the television channel, DY365 as an accused in the present

complaint. It is also submitted that there is no averment and material placed before the court so as to foist criminal liability against the accused persons

as the complaint is not clear how the accused persons were responsible for broadcasting of the alleged defamatory news item. Another contention

advanced is that the alleged defamatory news item was not placed before the learned trial court along with the complaint. In such view of the matter,

without having the alleged defamatory news item before it, the learned trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offences and issued process

against the accused-petitioners on the basis of the oral statement of the complainant alone. It is further submitted that the accused no. 1 is a resident

of Guwahati. Thus, without compliance of the conditions prescribed in Section 202, CrPC, the learned trial court could not have taken cognizance and

issued process against the accused no. 1. Lastly, it is contended that the ingredients to constitute the offence of defamation are apparently absent.

Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance,

the learned trial court has to consider the uncontroverted averments and accusations made in the complaint. Even in the absence of the alleged

defamatory news item, the learned trial court is empowered to take cognizance and the alleged defamatory news item could be ordered to be

produced during the course of the trial.

I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including that of the

Complaint Case no. C.R. 407 C/2012.

Section 499, IPC defines defamation and Section 500, IPC prescribes the punishment for defamation. Section 499, IPC states that 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

thereinafter enumerated, to defame that person. As per Section 500, IPC, whoever defames another shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for

a term of two years, or with fine, or with both.

In the complaint as well as in his initial deposition recorded under Section 200, CrPC, the complainant has stated that the alleged defamatory news

item was broadcasted through the television channel, DY365 on 07.06.2012. The accused no. 1 has been arraigned by name in his capacity as the

Executive Editor of the said television channel, DY365 which belongs to M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has further

averred that the accused no. 2 is a Reporter of DY365 having his residence within the jurisdiction of Lanka Police Station, Nagaon. Other than his

assertion and accusation that it was the accused persons who had broadcasted the alleged defamatory news item, no other details have been given by

the complainant to substantiate his claim that the accused persons were behind and responsible for the broadcast of the alleged defamatory news item.

In the complaint petition, there is no accusation that the alleged defamatory words were directly attributed to the accused persons. In the complaint

petition, the entity which owns, runs and operates the television channel, DY365 i.e. M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. is not made an

accused. The entity i.e. M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. as the name itself indicates, is a company and, thus, a jurisdic entity which has

its existence of its own. Thus, it is evident that it is the television channel, DY365 through which the alleged defamatory news item was broadcasted.

The accused persons have been projected to be employed and/or involved with the activities of the television channel, DY365 in different capacities.

The complainant has chosen to attribute the offences to the accused persons in their capacities as the Executive Editor and the local Reporter

respectively for the television channel, DY365, without making any specific allegations against them in their personal capacities.

It is to be mentioned that under the criminal law, there is no concept of vicarious liability unless the statute defining the offence specifically

provides for it. In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Datar Switchgear Limited, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 47, 9it is

observed to be trite law that wherever by a legal fiction the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally

involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned.

12.1. In the case of S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662, it has been observed as under : -

Appellant 1 is the Managing Director of the Company. Respondent 3 was its General Manager. Indisputably, the company is a juristic person. The

demand drafts were issued in the name of the Company. The Company was not made an accused. The dealership agreement was by and between

M/s. Akash Traders and the Company.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefor, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party

who is not charged directly for commission of an offence.

* * * * * * * * * * *

As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the company, even if appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed

an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor.

In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any

offence committed by the company itself. {See Sabitha Ramamurthy vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, (2006) 10 SCC 581}.

12.2. In Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing

Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question

viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the

respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director

would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute.

Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to

make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.

12.3. In R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and others, (2009) 1 SCC 516, The Supreme Court has observed to the following effect :-

If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being variously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In any

event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the Company as well as the person responsible for the acts of the

Company.

From the principles that are laid down in the above line of decisions, it is manifest that vicarious liability of the Managing Director, or a Director, or

an employee of a juristic entity like a company can arise provided there is any provision in the statute. There is no such provision in the Indian Penal

Code to bring in the concept of vicarious liability automatically when it is evident that the alleged offence was done not in his personal capacity and it

was done in the course of his duty on behalf of the company in which he is in employment.

Reverting back to the case in hand, for fastening criminal liability, there is no presumption that every employee in the broadcasting company knows

about the broadcasting. There is no accusation that either of the two accused persons directly used any defamatory words. It is not averred in the

complaint that it was the accused no. 2 who had provided the alleged defamatory news item to the television channel, DY365. The accused no. 2 has

been arraigned showing him to be a Reporter for the television channel, DY365 and a resident for the area of jurisdiction of the learned trial court.

Bald assertions that he is a Reporter for the television channel, DY365 and is a resident within the area of jurisdiction of the trial court are not

sufficient to foist criminal liability on a person without any further material to show as to how he was directly involved and responsible in the

commission of the alleged offence. On the other hand, the accused no. 1 has been arraigned as an accused showing him to be the Executive Editor for

the television channel, DY365. The role and function of an Executive Editor in a television channel is not explained by the complainant. The

complainant has not pleaded and explained as to how the accused no. 2 had played any role in choosing the alleged defamatory news item prior to its

broadcast on 07.06.2012. There is no specific allegation against the accused persons that they had the requisite knowledge as regards broadcasting of

the alleged defamatory news item or that they were directly responsible for broadcasting of such defamatory news item and they were in charge of

conduct of the affairs of the television channel, DY365 on the date of commission of the alleged offence. There is nothing alleging any prior concert

and any joint participation between the two accused behind broadcasting of the alleged defamatory news item. No statutory provision which

automatically fastens criminal liability on an Executive Editor and a Reporter of a television channel which broadcasted a news item, found to be

defamatory in the estimation of the complainant along with others, has been brought to the notice of this Court. One cannot, thus, draw a presumption

that the Executive Editor and the Reporter of the news channel are to be held responsible automatically for broadcast of the alleged defamatory news

item, which act was carried out on behalf of the television channel.

To proceed against an accused for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, there should be specific averment disclosing his involvement in the act

which constitutes an offence. But in the instant case, there are no specific accusations against the accused persons with regard to their knowledge,

role and involvement in broadcasting of the alleged defamatory news item. From the discussions made above, it is very much evident that the alleged

defamatory news item was broadcasted via the television channel, DY365, which is owned, run and operated by the juristic entity, M/s Brahmaputra

Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. Even it is assumed that the alleged defamatory news item was broadcasted with the knowledge of the accused in their

capacity as an Executive Editor and a Reporter of the television channel, DY365, the complainant was well aware of the fact that such broadcast was

not made by the accused persons in their personal capacities. It is demonstrated from the fact that in the complaint the accused persons have been

arraigned showing them as the Executive Editor and the Reporter of the television channel, DY365, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. But

the juristic entity i.e. the television channel, DY365, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. is not made an accused. Merely because the

accused persons happened to be the Executive Editor and the Reporter of the television channel, DY365, no criminal prosecution can be launched

against them holding them responsible for the offence punishable under Section 500, IPC without making the broadcasting entity which owns, runs and

operates the television channel, DY365 as an accused and without disclosing and substantiating the specific roles played by them in broadcasting the

alleged defamatory news item.

Thus, in absence of arraignment of the company, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd., the complaint instituted with only the accused by

their names in their official capacities of the Executive Editor and the Reporter of the television channel, DY365 is found not sustainable. On this

count itself, the criminal proceeding of complaint case, C.R. Case no. 407C/2012 is found to be not sustainable.

Submission is also made that alleged defamatory news item is not produced for inspection of the Court. On perusal of the materials on record, it is

found that the complaint petition is not accompanied by the alleged defamatory news item or its transcript in the form of a document. During his

examination under Section 200, CrPC also, the complainant did not submit the alleged defamatory news item in the form of a document. In the

absence of the alleged defamatory news item, the very basis to infer about the imputation, if any, made against the complainant is absent.

As per Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Evidence Act’, for short), ‘evidence’ means and includes (1) all statements which

the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, which statements are called oral evidence;

and (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, which documents are called documentary evidence. As

per Section 59, all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Such oral evidence must be direct

(Section 60). Section 61, Evidence Act provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence.

Primary evidence means the documents itself produced for inspection of the Court (Section 62). Section 64 of the Evidence Act has mentioned that

documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases provided in the Act. While Section 63 has enumerated the categories of

secondary evidence Section 64 has mentioned the situations in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. The expression,

‘electronics records’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Going by the projections made in the complaint and the expressions provided for in the aforesaid statutes, the alleged defamatory news item or its

transcript would fall in the category of ‘documentary evidence’, more particularly, within the expression ‘electronic records’. Such

electronic records can be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence, as per conditions laid down in the Evidence Act. The criminal

prosecution has been launched against the accused persons on the premise that the alleged news item broadcasted through the television channel,

DY365 is defamatory in nature. During the course of enquiry, the said alleged defamatory news item, which, for the complainant, is the foundation for

launching the criminal prosecution, has not been produced before the Court for its examination. It is not even mentioned in the statement of the

complainant that the said news item would be produced at a subsequent point of time. Nothing has been said by the complainant that he made any

effort to obtain the alleged defamatory news item from the rightful source and had failed in his attempts. Thus, the alleged defamatory news item was

not before the learned trial court at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of the process against the accused persons to arrive at a

prima facie opinion that the same was defamatory in nature.

It is fairly settled that in case of a complaint under 200, CrPC, a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine

the complainant and his witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process. Such examination

is meant for to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not. There expression ‘sufficient ground’ has been interpreted to

mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made against the accused and not sufficient ground for conviction. At the stage prior to issuance of

process under Section 204 of the Code, what is required for the trying Magistrate is to reach the satisfaction either by examination of the complainant

and the witnesses along with the documents so produced or by the inquiry contemplated under Section 202, CrPC that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding with the complaint. The Magistrate has to do this with reference to the quality of the statements made at the inquiry and the documents

produced in support thereof and can also take note of the inherent probabilities or improbabilities of the case. It can be said that if the evidence which

the complainant proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by

the defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, it is held that 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. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize 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.

The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC is to be exercised under three circumstances, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to

prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While it is true that the Court in exercise of its inherent powers

shall not interdict a legitimate criminal prosecution but at the same it should ensure that a criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of

harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Supreme Court has observed in the following manner :-

The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features

which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the

basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,

therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the

special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

In Sri Suresh Chandra Das vs. the State of Meghalaya, reported in ALR 1971 Assam and Nagaland 14,6 this Court has held that a trial cannot be

allowed to proceed on contingent, hypothetical and anticipatory evidence. The question that arose in the said case was whether in the absence of any

legal evidence whatsoever to show even a prima facie case that the charge is established the proceeding is liable to be quashed. The Court has

observed that to allow the trial to continue, when manifestly there is no legal evidence before the Court, on the mere probability of the prosecution at

some future date supplementing its case by adducing further evidence constitute undue harassment of the accused and violate all principles of law.

The said principle has been followed in the subsequent decisions of this Court in Apurba Poddar and another vs. State of Assam, (2005) 3 GLR 756

and H.R.A. Choudhury vs. Rockybul Hussain, 2008 (1) GLT 623. While following the said principle this Court in H.R.A. Choudhury (supra) has made

observations in the following words : -

The materials on record before the learned court below and as cognizable in law, in my view, do not constitute any legal evidence to inculpate the

petitioner with the offence alleged. On the measure of the above decision, the endeavour to defend the criminal proceeding on the plea of better

evidence at its later stages, is not convincing. The purpose of the examination of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200, CrPC, being to

derive an unreserved satisfaction about the justifiability to proceed with the prosecution, any unwarranted relaxation in this enjoinment, would be

subversive thereof.

In so far as the contention as regards non-observance of the mandate ingrained in Section 202 of the Code, a reference can be made to

observations made in Abhijit Pawar vs. Heman Madhukar Nimbalkar & another, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528 where it is observed that in those

cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the

Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202, CrPC was amended in the year 2005 by adding the words

“and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdictionâ€. It is observed that there is a

vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off place in order to save

them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation

before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to

the Bill proposing the said amendment. It is further observed that the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind

carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted

thereon, would prima facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. In a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which

constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements

recorded or the inquiry conducted theron, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. The requirement

of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is, therefore, held to be not an empty formality.

When the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions is considered qua the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is noticed that no

enquiry as prescribed in Section 202, CrPC had been conducted by the learned Magistrate and no documentary evidence in support of the allegations

against the accused persons qua the essential ingredients of the offence alleged had been examined by the learned Magistrate before summoning the

accused persons to face the trial. It is evident that the criminal prosecution has been allowed to proceed in the absence of the alleged defamatory

news item or its transcript which is stated to be the foundation of such criminal prosecution. It is the mandate of law that oral evidence cannot, in a

situation like the one in hand, be a substitute of the documentary evidence. The alleged defamatory news item which is supposed to be foundation of

the entire case of the complainant on which he is to build the superstructure in order to bring home the charge of defamation against the accused

persons, is found missing in the complaint with no prayer for bringing it on record at any subsequent point of time. As on date, the materials on record

with the inherent lacunae of lack of any legally acceptable evidence, do not have anything to hold that the trial should continue with the anticipation

that the complainant would produce the necessary legal and cogent evidence at a later point of time.

When the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is invoked this Court without undertaking any detail enquiry, has to examine as to

whether on the basis of the existing materials the offence alleged is made out or not. Upon due consideration of the materials which the complainant

has proposed to lead during the course of the trial, it is found that the complainant has proposed to prove the charge with only the oral evidence of the

two other witnesses. Thus, taking into consideration the special facts of the case this Court of the view that such a criminal prosecution would amount

to abuse of the process of the Court resulting in undue harassment if it is allowed to proceed on the hypothesis when it is even not pleaded that the

allegedly defamatory news item would be produced at a later date during the course of the trial. Mens rea on the part of the accused is essential for

the purpose of proving the charge of defamation. But in the case in hand, the said basis i.e. the alleged defamatory news item is found absent even for

the purpose to infer mens rea at the stage of Section 204, CrPC, not to speak of proving mens rea at the end of the trial. Mere bald statements in the

complaint and in the initial deposition recorded under Section 200, CrPC without the support of essential documentary evidence of alleged defamatory

news item cannot be said to fulfill the requirement of a prima facie case so as to reach a satisfaction of sufficient ground to proceed against the

accused persons for committing the offence of defamation.

In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons assigned, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal prosecution launched

against the accused persons through the Complaint Case no. C.R. 407C/2012 by the complainant is not sustainable in law and the order dated

25.06.2012 whereby the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused persons is found to be without

due application of mind. In the interest of justice, the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no. C.R. 407C/2012 shall not be allowed to proceed any

further as it would amount to abuse of the process of the court resulting in undue harassment of the accused. In such view of the matter, this criminal

petition is allowed. As a result, the criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case no. C.R. 407C/2012 and the order dated 25.06.2012 taking

cognizance and issuing process against the accused persons are quashed. The accused persons are treated to be discharged of the offences alleged in

the complaint. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.