The main legal point established is that specific averments indicating the role of the accused in the commission of the offence are necessary to attract defamation charges, and fair reporting of information in the public domain is protected.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. ADMIT. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this application takes an exception to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal directing to issue process under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in R.C.C. No. 614 of 2017. Applicant no.1 Vijay Darda is the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited (Lokmat Newspaper (P) Ltd.) whilst applicant no. 2 Rajendra Darda is an Editor-in-chief of Lokmat Media. Lokmat group is publishing a daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State of Maharashtra. The nonapplicant (complainant) was aggrieved by a news item published in the daily edition of 'Lokmat' dated 20.05.2016. It is the complainant's case that the applicants have published a false and frivolous news item in connivance with the co-accused with the sole intention of humiliating him, which has lowered his image in society.

3. Accordingly, the non-applicant lodged a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal against the applicants and others alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by taking cognizance of the complaint has recorded verification of the complainant. On examination of available material, the learned Magistrate has issued a process against the applicant and others. Aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the applicants have directly approached this Court in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (2016) 16 SCC 30.

4. The facts leading to the controversy can be set out in a narrow compass, that the applicant no.1 is a Chairmen of the Editorial Board whilst applicant no. 2 is an Editor-in-chief of Lokmat Group. Undisputedly, in the daily edition of Lokmat dated 20.05.2016, a news item was published concerning the complainant and his family. For the sake of convenience, the said news item is reproduced in vernacular as below :

5. Precisely, it was a publication regarding the registration of crime against the complainant and his family members. Feeling aggrieved by such publication, the non-applicant (complainant) has filed a complaint of defamation. It is the case of the complainant that though the applicants were shouldering the responsibility of the items published in the newspaper, they have published the concerned news without verifying its truthfulness. The complainant alleged that the police report lodged by the co-accused Ashok Gupta was totally false and frivolous. On the date of the alleged occurrence, the complainant was not present at the scene of the crime. Later on, he was excluded from the charge sheet. It is alleged that the applicants, without ascertaining the genuineness of the police report, published the news item which has harmed his reputation and therefore, the offence.

6. Primarily, on the reading of the aforesaid vernacular news item of the impugned news, it is evident that the Journalist/News Reporter has only reported the filing of the police report and the registration of the First Information Report by the Police officials. It is not in dispute that the news report was in consonance with the police report.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants made two-fold submissions. Firstly, the applicant nos.1 and 2 are not the Editors of the newspaper as per the declaration made under Section 7 of The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In support of said contention, my attention has been invited to the imprint line of the newspaper. The said imprint has a specific reference that one Dilip Tikhile is an Editor and responsible person in terms of the Act. It is specifically argued that the imprint note not only specifies the name of the Editor, but also clarif