Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for quashing of the complaint No.8-I-2022 dated 08.02.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 500 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Since both the petitions have arisen out of the common complaint, they are being taken up together for disposal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainants filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused/petitioner(s) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500 and 120B of the IPC. It was asserted that the complainants are the priests in the Mata Chintpurni Shrine. Accused No. 1, Rajesh Kalia, had a business rivalry with the complainants as their shops are situated in front of the shop of accused No.1. Accused No.1 had filed a false complaint with the police on 20.11.2021 to harm the complainants’ reputation. Accused No.1 again made a false complaint on 04.12.2021 regarding wrongful restraint and filthy abuses. Accused No. 2 published the news item against the complainant in Una Kesari. The relatives and friends of the complainant telephoned them after reading the news item. The news item lowered the complainants’ estimation in public. This news item was published without verifying the facts; hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law.

4. Learned Trial Court recorded the statements of Arvind Kalia (CW-1), Sumant Kalia (CW-2), Jiwan Kalia (CW-3) and Krishan Lal (CW-4) and found sufficient reasons to summon the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

5. Being aggrieved by the filing of the complaint and summoning order, the petitioners/accused filed the present petition, asserting that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the commission of any offence. The news item was based on the information provided by Arjit Sen Thakur, Superintendent of Police, Una. H.P. The editor of the newspaper was not made a party, and the news reporter cannot be vicariously liable for the act of the editor. The news item was based on the First Informant Report (FIR) filed before the police, and there was no intention to harm the reputation of any person. The accused was not residing within the area where the Magistrate exercised the jurisdiction, and an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was mandatorily required to be conducted, which has not been conducted; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

6. I have heard Mr Piyush Dhanotia, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/accused in both the petitions, and Mr Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions.

7. Mr Piyush Dhanotia, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/accused in both the petitions, submitted that a joint complaint filed by two persons is not maintainable. The editor of the newspaper was not arrayed as a party. Rajesh Kalia had only made a complaint to the Police, which cannot be said to be defamatory. The publication of the contents in the F.I.R. does not constitute defamation. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission: -

 M/s Nilanjana Bhowmick vs. Ravi Nair 2025:DHC:10104

8. Mr Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for the respondents in both the petitions, submitted that the news item was published at the instance of accused No.2 Surinder Sharma. Repetition of a libel is also a crime, and the accused No.2, Surinder Sharma, cannot escape from the liability