The judgment establishes the principle that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. extends only to acts shown to be in discharge of official duty, and emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of evidence and application of relevant legal principles in passing orders of cognizance and summoning.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

(Through Virtual Mode)

1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioners seeking quashment of complaint (for short impugned complaint) filed by respondent herein under Section 500 RPC along with subsequent proceedings including order dated 23.11.2015 (for short the impugned order) pending before the court of Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (for short the court below).

2. The impugned complaint is stated to have been instituted by the respondent herein before the court below stating therein that the complainant/respondent herein is a respectable citizen of the State, an educationist and philanthropist owning a daily circulated newspaper namely "State Times". Brother of the complainant/respondent herein is stated to be an Industrialist owning a unit of Water Purifier Treatment Plant situated at Murallian Bisnah, Jammu, with brand name Fit-n-Fine duly certified by I.S.A.

3. The complainant/respondent herein is stated to have contended in the complaint that the accused persons/petitioners herein got a report published in Excelsior newspaper that a team on 21.11.2015 raided Fit-n-Fine, Water Purifier Treatment Plant and Aloe vera, suspended its licenses and closed both factories, with a criminal intention indicating the name of the complainant/respondent herein with his full particulars, harming his reputation in the society and amongst the friends and relatives particularly knowing the fact that the complainant/respondent herein had nothing to do with the business of his brother.

4. It is stated that the complainant herein alleged in the complaint that by getting the report published in the newspaper-daily Excelsior, the accused persons/petitioners herein caused damage to the name of the complainant/respondent herein being enjoyed by him in the society at large and amongst his friends in particular. The said act of the accused persons/petitioners herein is alleged to have been committed by them not in discharging their official duty.

5. Upon presentation of the complaint before the court below, it is stated in the petition that cognizance was taken and the accused persons came to be summoned by the court below in terms of the impugned order dated 23.11.2015 after recording the statements of the complainant and one of his witnesses.

6. The maintainability of the complaint in as much as taking cognizance thereof including issuance of process against the accused persons/petitioners herein by the court below is being impugned in the instant petition inter-alia amongst others on the grounds that the petitioners herein are public servants, as such, are entitled to the protection of prior sanction for prosecution envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

7. It is urged in the grounds that the petitioner have performed their lawful duties while conducting inspection of the business concern of the brothers of the respondent herein as also one of their partnership concern namely M/s Aloe Vera International wherein the respondent herein is stated to be a 50% partner with his brother and that the duties discharged by the petitioners herein are under and in terms of the Section 88 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as also under Section 37 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, actions taken in good faith.

8. It is further urged in the grounds that averments made in the complaint are false and do not constitute any offence against the petitioners herein as newspaper wherein alleged news items has been published against the complainant respondent herein had been published through its own correspondent and that, as such, its editor and correspondent have not been arrayed as accused persons in the complaint.

9. It is next urged in the grounds that court below upon entertaining the impugned complaint has failed to record its satisfaction before taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners herein.

10. Per contra, objections have been filed by the