JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent against him for offence under Section 500 RPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, as also the order dated 20.08.2018, passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby, after taking cognizance of the offence, process has been issued against the petitioner.

2. It emerges from the record that the respondent has filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, against the petitioner herein who, at the relevant time, was a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from Devsar constituency. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant has been a two-time member of the State Legislative Assembly and he had also held the post of Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. It is further alleged that on 14.07.2018, the petitioner/accused addressed two public meetings, one at Devsar and another at Kund, wherein he made defamatory and baseless allegations against the respondent/complainant. The translated version of the alleged defamatory allegations attributed to the petitioner/accused have been reproduced in the complaint.

3. The statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner during the public meeting at Devsar, are that respondent/complainant has accumulated property worth Rs.10,000/- crores by looting poor people; he got loan amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs waived off; he ensured allotment of project worth Rs.200/- crores to his son at Anantnag without undertaking any tendering process for construction of Medical College at Larkipora; received bribe of Rs.10.00 lakhs for each appointment in J&K Bank; received an amount of rupees one crore from every officer.

4. Similar statements are alleged to have been made by the petitioner during public meeting at Kund. In the said public meeting the petitioner is alleged to have stated that the respondent/complainant has accumulated assets at Chandigarh, Delhi, Jammu, Pahalgam and Bihar. The petitioner has further alleged to have affirmed the correctness of the imputations made by him against the respondent by throwing a challenge to him to file a case in this regard.

5. In the complaint it is averred that the complainant/ respondent received the recorded statements of aforesaid allegations through social media as the same had gone viral. It is further averred that the allegations made by the accused have, besides tarnishing image of the complainant, also impacted the trust and faith reposed in him by the public which is likely to affect his political career.

6. After presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness. On the basis of the averments made in the complaint together with the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witness, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the petitioner herein and issued process against him in terms of order dated 20.08.2018.

7. The petitioner/accused has challenged the complaint as well as the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against him on the grounds that the petitioner at the relevant time was a member of the Legislative Assembly, as such, no cognizance of offence could have been taken against him without sanction for prosecution from the competent authority; that the alleged defamatory statements were made by the petitioner at Devsar and Kund and both these places are located in District Kulgam, thus, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; that the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness have not been recorded on oath and, as such, a grave illegality has been committed by the learned trial court; that the respondent has not reproduced whole speech of the petitioner and if he would have done so, no offence would have been disclosed against the petitioner; that in the capacity of Member Legislative Assembly, it was t