Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aslam Ansari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Inspite of repeated calls no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by Sri K.P. Rana, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 99 of 2003 whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 500, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code he has summoned the accused persons named in the complaint including the petitioner to face trial.

3. The case was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by Chanda Devi (opposite party no.2) on 3.2.2003 stating inter alia therein that she is wife of Sri Yogi Sah of village Chando Patti and she has one son and seven daughters from her husband besides several grand children. She has filed a case against Arjun Sah (accused no.5 in the complaint) which is pending before Sri S.K. Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur and the same was sent to the local police. It is alleged that because of this reason accused no.5 Arjun Sah got published a false news through accused nos.2 and 3, namely, Hari Ram Chaudhary and Krishna Kumar Paswan in the Hindi daily 'Prabhat Khabar' on 17.1.2002 against the complainant and her husband, thus, bringing into disrepute her character.

4. It has further been alleged that the petitioner, who is accused no.1 in the case being Chief Editor of the said Hindi daily got falsely published on 17.1.2002 that the complainant has solemnized marriage with one Shambhu Kumar Karan at Thaneshwar Mandir during the life time of her first husband. It is stated in the complaint that publication of incorrect, derogatory and defamatory news brought the image of the complainant and her family in disrepute in the society. The news item was authored, edited, published and printed without verification of truth of the allegation which were totally false and baseless.

5. After institution of the complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded on oath on 11.2.2003. Subsequently, four witnesses namely, Mintu Kumari, Yogi Sah, Pappu Paswan and Rinku Devi were examined on different dates in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant and examination of the witnesses by order dated 11.3.2003 took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons including the petitioner to face trial.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the complaint itself it would transpire that the petitioner is the Chief Editor of the news paper 'Prabhat Khabar'. It is pointed out that he is working in the said capacity since 1996 and his offence is situated at Ranchi which is head office of Hindi daily 'Prabhat Khabar'. The news item in question dated 17.1.2002 published in the said news paper has been brought on record and marked as annexure-8 to the petition. The photo copy of the relevant page of the said Hindi daily is also brought on record as annexure-9 to the petition which shows place of printing, name of the company, name of the publisher and printer, name of the Chief Editor and name of the Editor Incharge as per the provision of Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').

8. It is submitted that it would be apparent from annexure-9 that it has categorically been mentioned in the newspaper that the Editor Incharge Raghvendra would be responsible for selection of the news in accordance with the Act. It is also pointed out that the said newspaper is published from seven different places in three States with seven editors, namely, Ranchi, Patna, Deoghar, Dhanbad, Jamshedpur, Kolkata and Silliguri and the head office is situated at Ranchi. For different editions of the newspaper, there is Resident