JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Since issue involved in all the three cases are same, the aforesaid three revisional applications are disposed of by this common order.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 6th July, 2019 and 19th August, 2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah in case no. C-208 of 2019, the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred.

3. The petitioner contended that the opposite party herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate concerned alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 499/500/501/502/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioners of the respective cases, inter-alia on the allegations to the effect that accused persons with malicious dubious malevolent and spiteful determination, bearing clear mens rea, published libellous news attacking opposite party no. 2 in their newspaper. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called as ACJM) vide order dated 6th July, 2019 was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and fixed the next date on 12th July, 2019 for service return and appearance. Thereafter, vide order dated 12th July, 2019, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah took on record the original affidavit in chief of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and transferred the original case record to the learned Magistrate 1st Court, Sealdah, who fixed 19th August, 2019 as the date for appearance. It is alleged that on 19th August, 2019, the aforesaid trial Magistrate purportedly examined the witnesses of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without following its mandate properly and issued process against the petitioners of the respective cases along with other accused persons mechanically without having application of mind.

4. The petitioners further contended that the petitioners are innocent and no way connected with any offence far less the offence alleged in the complaint. They also submit that on June 21, 2019 one Sumanta Chowdhury @ Nanti, a resident of the ward which the opposite party no. 2 represented in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, alleged that the opposite party no. 2 had extracted money by way of “Tola” (extortion) and said allegation was covered by various electronic and print media and was allegedly headline in most of the newspaper of the state on the next date. The reporters of the respective newspapers had recorded the entire statement made by the said citizen on video and they sent it to opposite party no. 2 by whatsapp to which the opposite party no. 2 offered his comments. The said reporters also talked to the opposite party no. 2 and took his comments verbally and the said call was also recorded. It is further alleged that the concerned newspapers published an article quoting verbatim the allegations levelled against the opposite party no. 2, also the denial of the same and comments/clarifications offered by the opposite party no. 2. The petitioners further submit that from the impugned complaint, it would be evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners quo their knowledge of publication of such report.

5. The petitioners further submit that it is trite law, that in absence of specific allegation thereby showing some overt act and/or omission, no person can be implicated in a criminal proceeding. The offence of defamation being essentially civil in nature cannot be attributed to the petitioners in case of bona-fide reporting of an incident which has in fact, alleged to have taken place. They further submit that according to the Ninth Exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not defamation to make imputation which is made in good faith by person for the protection of his interest or other’s interest. It is further alleged that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioners here