Court must prevent unjust legal proceedings; defamation requires intention to harm, not met as the news article was factual.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of both the abovementioned petitions as they arise from identical factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-9219-2017.

2. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of summoning order dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, as well as the order dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby the revision petition preferred against the summoning order dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) was dismissed.

3. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that respondent No.2- complainant and her husband had disowned their son and daughter-in- law due to familial discord. An announcement qua the same was also published in a newspaper in the year 2003. However, on 23.08.2014, her son and daughter-in-law got a news article published in the city edition of the petitioner’s newspaper- Dainik Jagran, claiming that respondent No.2 and her husband had broken into their home and stolen cash and some gold items. Since the said news item caused considerable damage to the reputation and prestige of respondent No.2 and her husband in the society, the complaint (supra) was instituted. Subsequently, the petitioners were summoned by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Revisional Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-4).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out against the petitioners and the complaint(supra) is based on incorrect facts as the name of respondent No.2 was not mentioned in the said news article. Moreover, respondent No.2 has not brought anything to the record that would indicate that her reputation has been lowered in the society because of the said publication. Further still, the petitioners are not ‘Editors’ in terms of Section 7 of the PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT , 1867 (hereinafter ‘PRB Act’). The said news article was published in the Sirsa edition of Jagran City whereas the petitioners are based out of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In fact, they did not have any knowledge of the litigation till 09.03.2016 when a notice was issued to them. Learned counsel further contends that the said news article falls into the purview of Exceptions 1 and 9 of Section 499 and as such, the complaint (supra) has no legs to stand on. The revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Revisional Court merely only on the ground of limitation, which is erroneous as the period of limitation is to be calculated from the date of the incident coming to the knowledge of the petitioners i.e. 09.03.2016. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.M. Matherw vs. K.A. Abraham (2002) 6 SCC 670, Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya vs. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya (1979) 2 SCC 8, Aroon Poorie vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491 and this Court in Dhani Ram vs. Om Prakash 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 2651, Barjinder Singh Hamdard vs. Param Vir Rathee 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 286, Navjote Kaur Khara vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-44035-2015 and Ramesh Chand Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 22465.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2, alongwith the learned State counsel, submits that the son and daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 have t