JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J. — The petitioner are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No.2710 of 2008 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The complaint petition was filed by the opp.party No.1 herein, against the petitioners and other accused persons making allegation of commission of offence under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 IPC. The petitioner No.1 is the Editor of the daily Oriya newspaper, “The Dharitri” and the petitioner No.2 is its Printer and Publisher. On the complaint petition being filed, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the com¬plainant and by order dated 26.6.2008, considering the initial deposition of the complainant and the documents available on record found that prima facie evidence of commission of offence under Sections 500/501/502/34 IPC is revealed. Hence, he took cognizance of the said offence and directed issuance of process against the accused persons including the two petitioners fixing 21.7.2008 for appearance. The petitioners - accused persons as well as the accused “The Samajbadi Society” appeared through its council in response to summons issued and upon a memo being filed by the complainant, the name of accused No.4 was deleted from the record. Petitions were filed by the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C. praying to dispense with their personal appearance which were heard and disposed of by the learned Court below on 2.8.2008 allowing the said prayer. The petitioner No.1 was also permitted by the learned S.D.J.M. to represent accused No. 3 - M/s. The Samajbadi Society, in the case. On 30.10.2008, the complainant produced one witness, namely, Jatindra Narayan Chho¬tray, when the accused persons prayed for time, which was allowed till 1.11.2008. On 1.11.2008, the said witness was examined in chief. The accused persons prayed for an adjournment which was rejected and it was recorded that the cross-examination of P.W.1 is declined. On 6.12.2008, another two witnesses, namely, Debesh Das and Pratap Kumar Das were produced by the complainant, but as the Court was busy in chamber duty, the case was adjourned to 15.12.2008. On 15.12.2008, new advocates appeared for the accused and even though one witness was present, the case was adjourned to 15.1.2009. Again 15.1.2009, the witness Debesh Das was exam¬ined as P.W.2 in part and due to his sudden illness, his examina¬tion, was deferred. The case was adjourned to 7.2.2009. On 24.1.2009, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused persons for recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination and another petition was filed for recalling the order of cognizance. The learned Court below after hearing both the petitions allowed the petition for recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination and rejected the petition for recalling the order taking cognizance of offences on the ground that the said peti¬tion is not maintainable. On 7.2.2009 the accused persons cross-examined P.W.1 who was thereafter discharged. This Criminal Misc. Case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 30.1.2009 with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance of the offences, dated 26.6.2008.

2. It was contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no case made out under Sec¬tions 500/501/502 of the I.P.C. inasmuch as it was open for the complainant to take recourse to Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 which envisages that if a complaint is raised by the Press Council of India and the Council has reasons to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the stand¬ards of Journalistic ethics or public test or that an Editor or a working Journalist has committed any professional misconduct, the Council may after giving the newspaper, or news agency, the Editor or Journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under the said Act and if it is satisfied that it is neces¬sary so to do, it may for reasons to be recorded i