Sanjay Gupta vs Sidharth Manhas

Tashi Rabstan, J.â€"Through the medium of petition-in-hand, petitioner is seeking quashment of process issued by the Court of learned 3rd

Additional Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu vide order dated 22.01.2011 in a complaint titled Sidharth Manhas v. Sanjay Gupta and

others. It is contended that petitioner is Editor-in-Chief of daily newspaper ""Dainik Jagran"". In every State of India, there are separate Resident

Editors, who are responsible for selection and publication of the news items, whereas the petitioner is only responsible for general policy of daily

and various other publications of the said newspaper. It is further contended that for Jammu and Kashmir State, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma is looking

after the affairs of the publication, printing and editing and is also registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. It is mentioned

in every daily Edition that every news item published in the Edition, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, who is Editor of the newspaper, is responsible for the

same.

Further, contention of the petitioner is that on 18th of December, 2010 a news was received by the reporter of the ""Dainik Jagran"" publication

through Shri Arun Jamwal, SHO Police Station, Katra that a lady was abducted by three miscreants by stopping her Scooty and took her at Katra

in a Hotel where father-in-law of said lady reached in the said Hotel by following the Car bearing registration No. JK02K-1205. After reaching,

he inquired from the visitors registered and then found that a room was booked in the name of one Sanjay resident of Kishtwar. It is contended

that said matter was reported by SHO, Police Station, Katra that father-in-law, namely, Darshan identified the accused persons and on the basis

of information provided by the SHO, said news was published.

Sidharth Manhas (respondent herein) has filed complaint under Section 500 RPC before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu

which was transferred to the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, JMIC, Jammu It is contended in the complaint that he received a call from

one of his friends that a news item has been published in the newspaper ""Dainik Jagran"" wherein it is stated that a married lady of Miran Sahib has

been kidnapped by three youths and has been recovered from a Hotel in Katra by the father-in-law of the kidnapped lady and it is also stated that

the father-in-law of the kidnapped lady also thrashed one Sidarth Manhas alias Tinku involved in the kidnapping. On hearing this, respondent was

shocked and has filed a complaint under Section 500 RPC before the trial Court, who after hearing issued process in the Complaint against the

accused persons vide order dated 22.01.2011.

It is further argued that respondent is a respectable law abiding citizen and at present working as Marketing Manager in M/s. Jamkash

Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that after publication of the imputation not only the respondent, but all the members of his family have been

defamed and harmed as their reputation has been lowered down and tarnished in the Society. The old parents are in trauma and whole family is

disturbed and feeling unnecessary harassment by the imputation published in the newspaper, which has lowered them in the Society.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as order impugned.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed against three persons, i.e., (i) petitioner being Director of

Dainik Jagran"" Publication, (ii) Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, who is Printer and Editor of the ""Dainik Jagran"" and (iii) Mr. Arun Jamwal, SHO, Police

Station, Katra. It is contended by the petitioner that it is automatic news being issued by the Government Agency, i.e., SHO, Police Station, Katra,

who gave the information and it was published bonafidely in good faith for the general awareness of Society about the criminal activities of bad

elements and exploitation of women folk. It is further contended that under the Press and Publication Registration Act, only Abhimanyu Sharma is

responsible for selection of news and any consequences of publication, but the learned trial Court without recording personal satisfaction has

issued the process in the complaint against the petitioner as well.

The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint is that he being the Editor-in-Chief of newspaper ""Dainik Jagran"" is responsible for selection

of news items to be published in his paper. Further, the allegation of respondent-complainant is that by publishing defamatory news item in the

newspaper ""Dainik Jagran"", the petitioner along with two others, namely, Mr. Abhimanu Sharma, Editor of the newspaper and Arun Jamwal,

SHO, Police Station, Katra have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 RPC. Learned trial Court after recording statements of the

complainant and respondent and two other witnesses on the pre-summoning stage has come to the conclusion that prima-facie an offence under

Section 500 RPC is made out against the accused including the petitioner herein.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has challenged order of issuance of process dated 22.01.2011 in the complaint through the medium of petition

under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and also prayed for quashing of the complaint on the grounds set out in it.

The only ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that Abhimanu Sharma is a Printer and Publisher of newspaper namely, ""Dainik Jagran

and is a person only responsible for selection and publication of the news item in the paper published from Jammu and Kashmir The petitioner

being National Editor-in-Chief of the Paper ""Dainik Jagran has, therefore nothing to do with the selection of either news item or its publication. It is

also contended by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not applied its mind before issuing process in the complaint and order impugned

does not contain any reason on the basis of which learned trial court arrived at his/her satisfaction with regard to the prima-facie case made out in

the complaint for issuance of process.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner is an Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper ""Dainik Jagran and,

therefore has direct control on its publication through out the country including State of Jammu and Kashmir. He further contended that it is true

that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir other accused, namely, Abhimanu Sharma is Editor and it is because of this reason he too has been

arrayed as party accused Similarly, Abhimanu Sharma, other accused local Editor does not absolve the petitioner of his overall responsibility with

regard to publication I is also contended that all the news items published in the paper are presumed to be within the knowledge of the petitioner as

per general policy of publication of the newspaper concerned.

The complaint, preliminary statements and the news items in particular when read together do furnish the requisite material on the basis of will

learned trial Court could have arrived at the requisite satisfaction with regard to prima-facie commission of offence punishable under Section 500

RPC.

Remedy under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:--

(i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C.;

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court;

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and

(iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

The Apex Court in Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka 2008 AIR SCW 1003 , and M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and

Another, while laying down the tests, has also held that the remedy under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C. of

Central Code) and inherent power should not be exercised by the Courts in a routine manner, rather has to be exercised sparingly, carefully with

caution and in rarest of rare cases.

Applying the aforesaid tests in the present case, it can be safely said that in such cases inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be

exercised and the parties can well bring on record and argue before the trial Court. Parties can satisfy the trial Court whether publication was in

good faith or malafides or it lowered down and harmed the reputation or this falls within any exception. This all is a question of fact, which cannot

be gone into here.

Viewed thus, this Court do not deem proper to interfere to quash the complaint under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. as

it is well settled that inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary jurisdiction and is required to be

exercised in rarest of rare case. Instant case viewed from all angles does not come within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

for exercise of extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

In the given circumstances, I find that there is nothing on record to quash the order of the trial Court at its cognizance stage as otherwise also

as already said, the petitioner herein has every right to bring on record and argue before the trial Court whatever defence he is taking herein.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with connected Cr.M.A. Registry to send back the record of the trial Court along with copy of this

order.