JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Shri S.R.Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/respondent no.3.

2. Rule.

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. Respondent no.2 waives service and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent no.3.

5. This Writ Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. takes exception to the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner dated 03.10.2017 pursuant to which it confirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class issuing summons to the petitioners herein.

6. Heard Shri Arun Bras de Sa learned Advocate for the petitioner who contended at the outset as to how the reportage of the FIR could constitute defamation. He adverted to the press release issued by the Calangute Police Station and submitted that the petitioners had published the said information as given by the Calangute Police and who had subsequently filed a charge sheet against the respondent no.2. He adverted to the FIR lodged by one Antoneto D’Souza at the Calangute Police Station alleging illegal acts to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the newspaper report released by them wherein due care was taken to prefix the word alleged and allegedly vis-a-vis the press release of the Police. Therefore, no offence of defamation was at all made out. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in her impugned order had clearly recorded a finding that the reportage as made by the petitioners were justified as the complaint produced on record did allege the offences against the respondent nos.1 and 2. Yet however, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at para 18 referred to the fact that there was no allegation in the complaint that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had represented themselves as Indians though they were foreign nationals and therefore concluding that the respondent no.2 was justified in filing the complaint against the petitioners for publishing the defamatory news article dated 20.07.2010 in the Times of India.

7. Shri De Sa, learned Advocate next adverted to the complaint filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 against the petitioners and the original complainant Antoneto in which the respondent no.2 had clearly conceded that she was ordinarily a resident of UK and a business woman in London and that there were no basis for the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 had alleged in her complaint that the said Antoneto had circulated the complaint dated 05.07.2012 to the press and the same came to be published by the petitioners. The complaint was totally silent on the registration of an FIR against the respondent no.2. There was no specific averment in the complaint as to what constituted defamation. He placed reliance on Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India and another, {(2016) 9 SCC 473}, Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and ors. Vs. Uttama and anr.,{(1999) 3 SCC 134}, Primero Skill & Training Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Selima Publications Pvt. Ltd. & ors.CS (COMM) 1651/2016 & IA No.15902/2016 (unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court), Mohammed Israth Vs. T.S. Haneefa, {Cri. O.P.No.1918 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013} (unreported judgement of the Madras High Court.), Shri Laxman Jairam Malvankar Vs.Smt. Reshma Ramesh Narvekar, {Second Appeal No.07 of 2005}, Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.,{(2008) 5 SCC 668} and Ramachandra Venkataramanan Vs M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. & anr.,{Criminal Writ Petition No. 5298 of 2018} passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court to substantiate his case. Without prejudice however, Shri De Sa contended that he was ready to publish an article that the respondent no.1 was an Indian Citizen unlike the earlier report in the so called defamatory news item that both the respondent nos.1 and 2 were foreign nationals and as it was given on the basis of the