( 1 ) W. P. No. 28387 of 1998 has been filed by one T. Venkatram Reddy s/o late sri T. Chandrasekhar Reddy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE averments made in the writ affidavit are as under: The petitioner claims to be one of the partners of the partnership firm, which is running the english Daily "deccan Chronicle" and which is published from Secunderabad. The first respondent herein filed a criminal case in C. C. No. 730 of 1996 in the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for an offence punishable under Section 501 I. P. C. alleging that certain articles were published in the said newspaper relating to the affairs of the Osmania university when the first respondent was functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the said University. In the said complaint, the first respondent had indicated the name of the petitioner as the owner/proprietor of the said newspaper. The petitioner herein was shown as Accused No. 1 in the complaint whereas one Mr. O. Thomas, the publisher of the newspaper, was shown as Accused no. 2 and one Mr. P. N. V. Nair was shown as Accused No. 3.

( 3 ) IT is further averred by the petitioner that even as per the version of the first respondent herein i. e. , the complainant, the petitioner is the owner/ proprietor of the said newspaper while Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the publisher and editor respectively. In the face of the admitted facts, the learned x Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad has taken cognizance of the said private complaint and issued summons to all the accused. The petitioner was not aware of the said complaint till recently. The petitioner learnt that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner though he did not receive summons at any point of time.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that in an offence of def amationonly the Reporter who wrote the article, the publisher and the editor are only liable and not the owner/proprietor of the newspaper and therefore it is the contention of the petitioner that C. C. No. 730 of 1996 filed in the Court of the x Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner be quashed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. Mahmood Ali appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted at the Bar that as per the showing of the complainant himself, the petitioner herein is not liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 501 I. P. C. as the petitioner is a partner of the partnership firm which runs daily newspaper called as deccan chronicle . The learned Counsel Mr. Mahmood Ali further submitted that the reporter, who wrote the article primarily responsible for defamation if any caused to the complainant. The Editor, who is supposed to edit the news, can be held responsible and the publisher can also be held responsible in a criminal case for defamation. Under Indian Penal Code only the Reporter, who wrote the article, is responsible whereas vicarious liability is fastened on the Editor and the Publisher under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act 25 of 1867 ). But no penal law holds the owner of the press responsible for an action for defamation and therefore it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the proceedings in C. C. No. 730 of 1996 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad be quashed by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

( 6 ) IN order to substantiate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a ruling reported in Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya vs. T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya. Their lordships were pleased to hold at Para 15 (3) as under:"that the petitioner has not at all pleaded in his petition the nature of the duties performed or responsibilities shouldered by the appellant as chief Editor. There is no averment at all in the petition that the appellant controls the selection of matter that is pub