The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even when a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, if the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary.

1. The applicant has been summoned to stand his trial along with the Editor and correspondent of the Journal known as Awaz for the offence punishable under S.500 of the Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code). The news item was published in an issue of the Journal Awaz which, inter alia, stated that the applicant had lodged a First Information Report at the police station stating that a tenant residing on the first floor of the house had made his life difficult inasmuch as the said tenant was throwing acid in the drinking water used by the family members of the applicant. In the said news item it is also stated that the applicant was opposed to the unlawful activities of the said tenant who was carrying on trade in brass etc. in an illegal manner.

2. In the complaint filed by the opposite party, it was alleged that the said news item was published in the said Journal at the instance of the applicant. Before filing the complaint the opposite party served a notice through a lawyer on the applicant stating that he was responsible for the publication of the said news item. The opposite party received reply of the said notice from the applicant denying the said allegation.

3. The trial Magistrate, in order to arrive at his satisfaction before issuing processes against the applicant and others arrayed accused in the complaint, examined evidence under S.202 of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

4. The Opposite Party produced two witnesses at that stage. All that these witnesses have stated is that on account of the publication of the said news item in the Journal Awaz, the esteem in which they held the opposite party has considerably diminished. None of these, however, stated that the applicant was responsible for the publication of the said news item in the journal Awaz. There is also nothing substantial in the testimony of the opposite party recorded on the back of the complaint from which it may be concluded that the applicant was responsible for the publication of the news item.

5. The Trial Magistrate, however, passed an order on Sept. 22, 1982, summoning all the three persons who were arrayed as accused in this case. Against the order of the Trial Magistrate, the applicant preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, The said revision was dismissed by the said court by its judgment and order dt. Mar. 25, 1983. This application has now been preferred by the applicant under S.482 of the Code and a prayer has been made that the Criminal proceedings initiated against him at the instance of the opposite party amounted to an abuse of the judicial processes, has no prima facie case existed against the applicant. According to the applicant, there is not an iota of evidence on the record which may establish that the applicant was instrumental in getting the news item published in the Journal Awaz.

6. It is significant that no grievance has been made out in the complaint filed by the opposite party in respect of the report lodged at the police station by the applicant. The only grievance made out in the complaint is to the effect that the purport of the said First Information Report was got published in collusion with the applicant in the Journal Awaz.

7. I have carefully looked into the matter "Awaz" convinced that there is no whisper in the testimony of the prosecution witness examined under S.202 of the Code which may connect the applicant with the publication of the news item. No summon, therefore, could have been issued against the applicant for the offence punishable under S.500 of the Penal Code and the trial which he is now required to stand is an abuse of the process of the Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has, however, urged that since a revision has been preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge and the said revision had been dismissed, an application before this Court with the help of S.482 of the Code was not lega