1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 23.02.2018, passed in CR Case No.1496/2018, whereby, learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 500/501 IPC against the petitioner, and also for quashing the proceeding in the said complaint case.

2. The respondent No.2, as complainant lodged a complaint against the present petitioner under Section 500/501 IPC, alleging that the petitioner with the intention to harm the reputation of the respondent No.2, brought certain defamatory allegations against the respondent No.2 by way of a press release, which was published in the newspaper entitled “Axomia Pratidin” in its issue dated 17.12.2018 and 18.12.2018. On the basis of such complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner stated in the petition that the allegations brought against the petitioner in the complaint were not true and the alleged publication was neither defamatory nor the petitioner had any intention to defame the respondent No.2.

3. Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AM Bora, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Addl. PP for the State respondent were heard.

4. Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Haider Hussain Vs. Ramesh Saikia,2017 (5) GLT 561, submitted that the proceeding against the present petitioner was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, being the editor and publishers etc of the newspaper, “Axomia Pratidin”. Mr. KN Choudhury further contended referring to Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that for publication of any news item, the editors, printers and publishers could be held liable and not the present petitioner. Further submission of the learned counsel was that the alleged publication was neither defamatory nor was the same intended to defame anyone and the statement and publication was for public good and in the interest of the public.

5. Refuting the submission of Mr. Choudhury, Mr. AM Bora, learned senior counsel would submit, that the news item was published on the basis of a press release issued by the petitioner and it was not a news item prepared and published by the newspaper of its own and as such, only the petitioner who caused the publication or made defamatory statement, by way of press release, was liable for his own act. It was also submitted that the editor or publisher of the newspaper were not necessary parties, nor the complaint in a criminal proceeding can be thrown away on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties, unless the statute provides so.

6. Thus, from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the criminal proceeding is sought to be quashed essentially on the following three grounds:

(i) The complaint was bad for non joinder of editor, publisher, printers of the newspaper;

(ii) The publication nor press release, made bonafide for public good and public interest by a responsible citizen, cannot be construed as offence;

(iii) The publication made in the newspaper was not defamatory, and the allegations made in the complaint did not make out any offence.

7. Mr. K. N. Choudhury learned sr. counsel submitted, that the instant criminal proceeding for defamation cannot proceed against the petitioner, for non-joinder of the editor of the newspaper, inasmuch as, it is the editor, who controls the selection of the news item to be published and is responsible for any publication. Mr. Choudhury also referred to Section 7 of the Press and Registration of the Books Act, 1867 (for short “Press Act”) to contend, that there could be presumption against the editor or printer, publisher, whose names were printed in the newspaper. The present petitioner not being editor or printer or publisher cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the publication made in