The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in criminal proceedings and the freedom of press subject to certain restrictions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of proceedings initiated under Sections 500 and 501 RPC in the Complaint titled "Swadesh Mitter Bakshiv. Raj Daluja" by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu. In the petition, it has been stated that impugned order dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu in the aforesaid Complaint, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is legally and factually incorrect. The learned Magistrate while issuing the process has failed to appreciate the contents of the Complaint inasmuch as the provisions of the Section 500 RPC in right prospective. The order impugned is erroneous and unwarranted in the eye of law, as such deserves to be set aside.

2. The respondent while filing the Complaint has alleged the news item published on 08th February, 2008 in the Daily State Times, which relates to one-Parul Bakshi S/o. Sh. Sudhir Bakshi, who was involved in a criminal case as per police report has in fact defamed the deceased-Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi, Ex-DIG. Police and the complainant, who claims himself to be the son of deceased-Vishwa Mitter, filed the Complaint for defamation on account of the alleged defamation. In fact, there was not even an iota of averment against the complainant of his family members, but the respondent filed the Complaint by suppressing the fact that Parul Bakshi S/o. Sh. Sudhir Bakshi is also closely related to the deceased, who was his cousin grandson and the complaint has been filed by suppressing the facts with ulterior motives. As per settled law, proceedings under the aforesaid Sections of the RPC can be initiated by the person, who has been defamed and not by any other person.

3. From the bare perusal of the Complaint, in as much as the publication made by the newspaper 'State Times', it is apparently clear that no news item against the respondent has been published and the complainant was not at all connected with the said Complaint. Whatever the new item was published in the newspaper, the same was in good faith and on the reporting of the Police Agency and is neither defamatory nor in any manner cause any imputations to the complainant/respondent, but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and passed the order impugned, directing the petitioner to fact the trial. The uncontroverted allegations made in the Complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same, on the basis of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu has issued the process against the petitioner do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. The Complaint on the face of it is not maintainable.

4. The petitioner has challenged the issuance of process in the Complaint by filing the present petition under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. inter alia on the following grounds:-

(i) From the bare perusal of the Complaint, it is clear that if the allegations made in the Complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety even then the allegations made in the Complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate without appreciating the facts has issued process against the petitioner and as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled, "G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 754", has been settled at rest that if no evidence is disclosed in the Complaint, the complaint has to be dismissed and it has further been held that the criminal proceedings are not a shortcut of other remedies available in law and further held that before issuing a process, a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution, as for the accused, it is a serious matter. On this Court also, the order impugned regarding issuance of process against the pe