ORDER

Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—This petition is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 (A-3 and A-4) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.258 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore relating to offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

2. Subject matter of this petition is, news item in Nellore Town Tabloid of Vaartha daily newspaper dated 08.10.2002, which relates to committing of rape by a father on his daughter. In the news item, name of the culprit is given as suspended police constable Venkata Mastanayya with Roll No.1219. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is the Police Constable with Roll No.1219 and not the culprit and that even though the culprit was police constable with Roll No.1299, the accused gave Number as 1219 in order to defame the de facto complainant. On those allegations. the 2nd respondent filed private complaint in the lower court against the reporter Nagendra Singh as A-1, Desk In-charge Nazeer as A-2, the Editor Tankasala Ashok as A-3 and the Managing Editor & Chief Managing Director Girish Sangvi as A-4. A-3 and A-4 alone filed this petition. Prior to filing of the private complaint, the 2nd respondent got issued notice dated 16.10.2002 to A-1 to A-4. After receiving notices. it is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that errata was published on 29.10.2002 in Nellore Town Tabloid of Vaartha daily newspaper to the effect that number of the constable in the news item dated 08.10.2002 may be read as 1299 instead of 1219. Without satisfying about the said errata, the 2nd respondent filed the private complaint in the lower court.

3. In my opinion, publishing errata is not proper by the accused without expressing any regrets for the original publication. In case, the accused realised their mistake in original publication, the editor should have published a notice expressing regrets or sorry or pleading excuses for the mistake in original publication; and the said notice should have been signed by the editor. Without following such known and desirable practice, the accused showed their indifference for their earlier mistake and published only errata instead of notice of regrets.

4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when name of the person who committed rape on his own daughter was given as Venkata Mastanayya and he was described as suspended police constable with a wrong Roll No.1219 instead of 1299, there is no possibility of the public mistaking the 2nd respondent who is a police constable with Roll No.1219 as the culprit. There is every force in that contention of the petitioners’ counsel. If name of the culprit is not given and he was described only by his roll number, then there is every possibility of the public identifying the 2nd respondent as the culprit. But, when name of the culprit was published with further description as suspended police constable, no one would mistake the accused as the culprit even though the news item gave roll number of the 2nd respondent instead of correct roll number of the suspended constable who is the culprit. It is not the complainant’s case that he was also in suspension at the relevant point of time. When the mistake in giving roll number was made known to the accused, they gave errata in the newspaper giving out correct roll number of the culprit who is said to have committed rape on his own daughter. Thus, on facts, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to giving name of the culprit and describing the culprit as suspended constable, there is no imputation against the 2nd respondent /complainant in the news item in question even though roll number of the suspended constable was wrongly given. Further, there is absolutely no averment in the complaint that mentioning of wrong roll number by the accused in the news item was intentional.

5. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-3 and A-4 are not liable to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Secti