JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against them alleging commission of offences under Section 500 RPC which is stated to be pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Samba, (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Magistrate’). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby process has been issued against the petitioners.

02. It appears that a complaint came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that the respondent/complainant is a business man dealing in repairing of computers having his shop at Ramgarh, Samba. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1-Sanjay Gupta is owner of newspaper Dainik Jagran whereas petitioner No. 2-Abhimanyu Sharma, is the Chief Editor of said newspaper.

03. It was alleged that the petitioners without going into the truth of the matter published a news item that the respondent is an over ground worker of militants and that he along with other persons was taken into custody. In the news item it was further alleged that the respondent has direct links with top militants including ‘Azahar Masood’. Thus, petitioners had knowingly published a defamatory news item against the respondent due to which his image has been lowered in the eyes of his relatives and other members of public at large. It was also alleged that the news item published in the newspaper “Dainik Jagran” at the behest of the petitioners is fabricated and despite serving a legal notice upon the petitioners they did not tender any apology. Copy of the news item was placed on record by the respondent/complainant along with his complaint.

04. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant and one witness passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 whereby after taking cognizance of the offence it was observed that the petitioners have prima facie committed offence punishable under Section 500 RPC, as such, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against them.

05. The petitioners have challenged the impugned complaint and proceedings emanating therefrom on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 is only responsible for general policy of the newspaper and that there are separate Resident Editors who are responsible for selection and publication of the news items. It has been further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is looking after the affairs of the publication as printer and editor. It has been submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is responsible for every act and omissions with respect to the publication of the news items published in the newspaper under reference.

06. It has been submitted that the news item that is subject matter of the impugned complaint was already in public domain and it was based on the information received from the investigating agency that was investigating the Nagrota attack. It has been contended that the learned trial Magistrate ought not have issued the process against the petitioners as it interferes with their right of freedom of speech and expression.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

08. Before analyzing the facts emanating from the record of the trial court, it would be apt to notice the legal positions as regards the scope of power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interfere with the proceedings/complaint before a Magistrate.

09. The legal position in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgment including the judgments delivered in the cases of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another V. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that in a case where allegations made in the complaint and evidence collected in support of the sam