ORAL ORDER

1. This is a petition by the petitioners- original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash and set aside the orders dated 01.09.2018 and 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh (‘Revisional Court’ in short), in Criminal Revision Application No. 27/2018 so also the order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mundra- Kachchh (in brief, ‘trial Court’) and the order of summoning the petitioners vide order dated 21.12.2017.

2. Respondent No.1-original complainant had filed a complaint, alleging defamation by the petitioners on the basis of two articles and one video interview. Petitioner No.1 is a private company and runs news website and petitioner No.2 is its director, who seeks to challenge the orders passed by the Courts below.

3. The petitioners were summoned as accused vide order dated 21.12.2017, passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Sections 109, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ in brief).

4. Criminal Revision Application No. 27/2018 was, therefore, preferred before the revisional Court under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which also has not been entertained.

5. Aggrieved petitioners are, therefore, before this Court urging to intervene, essentially, on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code so also on the ground that the trial Court gave certain findings and made certain observations, which are contrary to the settled principles of law, particularly Paragraph-11 of the order of the trial Court.

6. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Vatsa, for the petitioners, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.V. Raju, with learned Advocate, Mr. B.S. Raju, for the respondent- original complainant and learned APP, Ms.

Maithili Mehta.

7. Learned Advocates for the parties urged that without entering into the merits of the matter, since, both the sides have agreed and has made a request to this Court to quash and set aside both the orders of the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and for the said purpose, they have urged to accede to the said request. For so urging, they have relied on the observations made by the trial Court in Paragraph-11 of its order dated 21.12.2017 and also emphasized on non-compliance of the provisions of Section 202 of the Code.

8. On perusal of the material on record so also on considering the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 202 of the Code as contemplated under the law. Moreover, findings and observations at Paragraph-11 of the order impugned would also need to be corrected. Bearing in mind, without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court deems it fit to QUASH and set aside both the order passed by the trial Court dated 21.12.2017 and to REMAND the matter to the trial Court to begin the process, after the STAGE of verification. It is expected from the learned Presiding Officer to comply with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code so also following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in this regard in a number of decisions. Aforesaid process shall be completed at the earliest, but, not later than the period of EIGHTS WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the order of revisional Court dated 12.09.2018, confirming the said order goes.

9. So far as the order passed by the Revisional Court below Exhibit-17 in Criminal Revision Application No. 27/2018 is concerned, this Court notices that the revisional Court had directed the petitioner not to publish any news with regard to the court proceedings of the trial, till it reaches to the final conclusion. The petitioners were also directed to file and undertaking to that effect on oath.

10. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Vatsa, for t