The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the inherent powers cannot be invoked with respect to any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. A complaint under Section 499 and 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 AD, of erstwhile State of J&K (which is pari materia to Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code) was filed by Public Prosecutor, Srinagar – respondent no. 1 herein, against petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, before the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) on the grounds detailed therein. The Trial Court, while taking into account the allegations made in the complaint and the record concomitant therewith, took cognizance of the complaint and issued process vide order dated 29th September 2010 and bailable warrant in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- each was issued for securing presence of the accused.

2. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved of aforesaid complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon by the Trial Court, seeks quashment thereof on the edifice of case set up and grounds taken in petition on hand.

3. I have heard Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. B.A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, appearing for respondent no. 1. I have gone through the record on the file.

4. As is discernible from the file, a complaint has been moved by respondent no. 1 before the Trial Court under Section 499, 500 RPC/IPC. While giving introduction of Mr. Omar Abdullah, the then Chief Minister of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is stated in the complaint that on 25th August 2010, a Press Conference was held by petitioner and respondent no. 2, at the office of J&K Peoples Democratic Party, No. 2, Circuit House, Emporium Lane, Residency Road, Srinagar, which was attended by several other members of the Party, including legislators of the State Legislature as well as members of public and media persons. It is alleged that during aforesaid Press Conference, both petitioner and respondent no. 2 have levelled false and defamatory allegations against Mr. Omar Abdullah, in presence of journalists and reporters from print and electronic media, and several other persons. The complainant/respondent no. 1 has also averred that all such allegations were not only defamatory but were made with an intention to defame Mr. Omar Abdullah. The details of defamatory allegations levelled against Mr. Omar Abdullah have been enumerated by complainant/respondent no. 1 in the complaint. A number of contentious and triable facts and issues have been made in the complaint.

5. While ingeminating averments of the petition, it is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that the complaint filed by respondent no. 1, has led to serious abuse of process of court as allegations contained therein or evidence placed on record in support thereof, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against petitioner and that whatever petitioner averred, was asserted in good faith which squarely falls under Eighth Exception of Section 499. Petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 499 and 500 RPC, by making defamatory allegations of kickbacks in the award of Rattle Power Project by the then Chief Minister. Petitioner is also alleged to have made a defamatory allegation regarding exorbitant expenditure incurred on the construction of official residence of the Chief Minister and is also alleged to have made a defamatory allegation against the Chief Minister regarding pilferage of certain priceless antiques from the State Toshakhana. Petitioner is alleged to have made defamatory allegations qua withdrawal of secret funds by the Chief Minister and in this regard respondent no. 1/complainant has extensively relied upon and quoted the news item carried by Daily Newspaper Greater Kashmir in its Issue dated 26th August 2010. According to learned senior counsel, the said news item does not at all mention or disclose that any of the statements referred to as defamatory statem