JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. The petitioner herein through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. (482 Cr.P.C.) seeks quashment of compliant No. 55/Comp titled as Kamal Rometra vs. Prof. S.K. Bhalla, for offences under Sections 211 and 500 (b) RPC passed by the court of learned 1st Civil Subordinate (Sub-Judge), Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu (for short the ‘Trial Court’) along with order of cognizance dated 01.11.2016 (for short ‘the impugned order’).

Brief facts of the case:

2. The factual matrix of the matter, as reflected from the complaint, which came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein in the trial court is that the complainant-respondent herein is the editor of leading newspaper of Jammu and Kashmir, namely ‘Daily Excelsior’ having its widest circulation amongst all the local newspaper in Jammu and Kashmir and that because of the efforts of the father of the complainant-respondent herein for the last more than 50 years, the said newspaper made up its name and created a niche for itself in J&K and that the newspaper is known for fearless and transparent reporting on account of high moral standards of the father of the complainant after his death, the complainant with his brother, namely, Neeraj Rometra, who is the Executive Editor of the newspaper.

3. It has been stated in the complaint that on account of its extensive reporting of the news paper against the corrupt and malpractices of various government officials and private persons, the said people becomes inimical towards the newspaper and its management, thereof finding way to tarnish the image of newspaper and the complainant besides, indulging in blackmailing and harassing the complainant so that the newspaper dissuades from truthful reporting.

4. It has been alleged in the complaint that the accused-petitioner herein has been filing complaints and petitions against large number of people under the garb of Public Interest Litigation, projecting himself to be a public spirited person and that the accused- petitioner apparently acting on behalf of somebody who has been exposed by the truthful reporting of the newspaper filed a complaint with the Crime Branch, leveling wreck-less and baseless allegations against the complainant, his brother and the newspaper. The said false and frivolous allegations are stated to have been made to defame the complainant-respondent herein, his brother and the newspaper.

5. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the complainant-respondent herein instead of refusing to budge to the tactics of blackmailing and harassment at the hands of the accused-petitioner-herein though, challenged the power and jurisdiction of the crime branch to inquire into the allegations leveled in the complaint filed by the petitioner-herein in view of SRO 133 of 1991 read with SRO 202 of 1999 before this Court in OWP No. 915/2016, yet associated with the inquiry conducted by the Crime Branch, which after holding an investigation in the said complaint found that the same is false with no offence has been committed by the complainant-respondent herein while closing the said inquiry.

6. It has also been alleged in the complaint by the respondent herein that his image got tarnished in the eyes of general public because of filing of complaint by the petitioner-herein before the Crime Branch and the same brought disrepute to the newspaper, as also its management and that every statement made by the accused-petitioner herein in the complaint filed before the Crime Branch is defamatory, intended to malign and denigrate the complainant-respondent herein and to lower down him in the esteem of general public. The complainant-respondent herein, thus, prayed for initiation of proceedings against the accused-petitioner herein for having committed under Sections 211 and 500 RPC.

7. The petitioner-herein challenges the impugned complaint and order dated 01.11.2016 in the instant petit