1. Since all the three criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed in Complaint No.1669/2006 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. III, Jodhpur, Rajasthan under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and the proceedings emanating therefrom, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. All the petitioners are suffering impugned order taking cognizance on an application filed under Section 228A IPC, which prohibits disclosure of identity of the rape victim during trial.

3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 01.06.2005, certain persons were convicted for the offence of rape against a German tourist by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.87/2005. On 30.03.2006, the India today Magazine published an Article titled as “Bharose Par Bhari Chot”, which contained the name of the victim of the offence of rape i.e. the German tourist.

4. A complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on 03.04.2006, on which an FIR was lodged for the offence under Section 228A IPC with regard to publication of an Article in the India Today Magazine in Edition No.24 dated 30.03.2006 to 05.04.2006 on Page No.48 titled as “Bharose Par Bhari Chot”. A written complaint was also filed being complaint No.1669/2006 before the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.III, Jodhpur on account of the FIR not being lodged by the concerned police station. On 28.05.2006, the concerned court directed the Station House Officer of the concerned police station to make a detailed investigation in the matter. Meanwhile, a closure report was also filed on 12.10.2006 by the concerned Investigating Officer stating therein that the petitioners were not responsible for publication of the Article dated 05.04.2006 in Edition No.24 of the India Today Magazine, as the name of the victim was already there in the judgment rendered by the concerned Fast Track Court, Jodhpur, and therefore, since there was no element of secrecy, the offence was not constituted. However, on 30.11.2006, the learned trial court took cognizance for the offence under Section 228A IPC against the petitioners and also issued bailable warrants to the tune of Rs.5,000/- against the petitioners, which was challenged by way of filing the present misc. petitions.

5. The matters were decided by a common order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.04.2009, whereby the misc. petitions were held to be not maintainable, in view of the judgment rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Sanjay Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 282, which clearly held that availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was a ground to dismiss the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 05.09.2016, while hearing Criminal Appeal No.842 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3314/2009 and other analogous matters, held that the impugned order passed by the Rajasthan High Court was contrary to law, and therefore, these were fit cases to be remanded back, and thus, set aside the aforementioned order dated 02.04.2009 remitting the matter back for fresh hearing of the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with request to hear and decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. The matters were accordingly finally heard by this Court.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Paras Kuhad assisted by learned counsel Mr. Vikas Balia and others made a submission that the reporting so made was a bonafide reporting of a widely covered matter and the name of the victim, for the first time, was take