ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.2.2024, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore affirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar dated 25.9.2023 in case No.RCT 504/2023.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, Air Marshal Harish Masand (retd.) has filed a private complaint alleging defamation by the accused persons, eight in number (Accused No.8 Lieutenant Colonel I.S. Gill (retd.) has died during the proceedings). In the aforesaid case, initially an order was passed by the Trial Court on 17.5.2023 (Annexure- P/7), holding that no prima facie case of defamation is made out against the accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7. The aforesaid order of JMFC was challenged in Criminal Revision No.53/2023, which was decided on 31.7.2023, remanding the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh, as it was found that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the documents filed on record. After the matter was remanded back to the trial Court, subsequent order was passed by the Trial Court on 25.9.2023, this time giving details of the accusations made against each of the other accused persons and came to the same finding that no case for taking cognizance is made out against the other accused persons, except the accused No.1 and 6, i.e., Sandeep Gupta and Lieutenant Colonel Jagdish Pahuja.

4. The aforesaid order dated 25.9.2023 was again challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.95/2023 (AnnexureA/11), which was decided on 5.2.2024, which is under challenge before this Court. In the aforesaid order, learned Judge of the Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 25.9.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class holding that no error has been committed in passing the aforesaid order by the Judicial Magistrate in taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 6 only, and letting off the other accused persons.

5. Shri Harish Masand, the petitioner herein, has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that both the learned Judges of the District Court have erred in appreciating the averments made by the petitioner in his complaint and the documents filed therewith, in their proper perspective. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the WhatsApp chats (Annexure-P/3) to submit that the initial post against the petitioner was made by Sandeep Gupta on 21.2.2023, at 01:05 a.m., which has been liked and supported by the other accused persons in their subsequent posts. Thus, it is submitted that since the initial post itself is defamatory against the petitioner, and other persons have approved of the same by sending their personal messages in the WhatsApp group, it cannot be said that other persons were not involved.

6. In support of his submissions, Shri Masand has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Khanna and Others Vs. Moti Ram, reported as 1971 (3) SCC 399; Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Others v. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 465; Nazir Khan and Others v. State of Delhi, reported as (2003) 8 SCC 461 and Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported as (2023) 8 SCC 358.

7. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6, Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in appreciating the documents filed on record. Shri Trivedi has submitted that both the Courts have rightly held that the main allegations are against the accused Sandeep Gupta and Lieutenant Colonel Jagdish Pahuja only, who have made defamatory statements against the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of the housing society and not as an Air Force Officer while serving the nation, whereas, the present respondent Nos.2 to 5/accused persons are the family mem