##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:40230]

HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1537/2005 CNR: RJHC020210432005 | URN: CRLMP / 2860U / 2005

1. M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd, Itrana Road, Industrial Area, Alwar, Dist. Alwar

2. Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd, Kesargarh, Jaipur

3. Milap Kothari, Advisor, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd, Kesargarh, Jaipur (Deleted)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through PP

2. Kailash Chand son of Ganesh Lal adopted son of Kanhaiyaa Lal, resident of Laxmangarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Dist. Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. Mahesh Vijay and Mr. Manish K. Sharma For Respondent : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP For Complainant : Mr. Ram Babu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

REPORTABLE 01/10/2026

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of CrPC by the petitioners aggrieved from order dated 11th November 2005 in Criminal Revision No.86/2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakshmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the revisional Court has affirmed the order of cognizance dated 7th April 2004 in criminal complaint case No. 7/2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakshmangarh, District Alwar, wherein an order of cognizance has been passed against ten accused, including present petitioners under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC.

2. During pendency of miscellaneous petition, petitioner No.3- Milap Kothari has expired, thus his name has been deleted on 1st September 2021. Now we are considering this petition on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 has filed a criminal complaint on 21st August 2003 against ten persons alleging inter alia that he is a lawyer and practicing at Laxmangarh and the accused, who were annoyed and having animosity due to his success in advocacy, has distributed pamphlets and organised a demonstration with intent to injure his reputation. He also submitted that on basis of distribution of pamphlet and said incident, the complaint has been filed wherein clearly mentioned that the pamphlets were distributed by other accused persons and same was printed at Surya Printers but present petitioners have no role in said incident of demonstration and distribution of pamphlets. He further submitted that making allegation in para No. 9 of complaint that the accused Nos.1 to 4 with intent to circulate the details mentioned in the pamphlets have published a news article with intention to injure and cause damage the reputation of complainant. He submitted that in the entire complaint nowhere it has been mentioned that how these petitioners have played any role in publication and distribution of pamphlets, as the petitioners have nothing to do with any of the acts committed by other accused and also with the Surya printing press, which published the pamphlets. He also submitted that in the entire complaint nowhere any kind of specific role and involvement of these petitioners were mentioned and further, after registration of complaint in the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC nowhere it has been mentioned that any of the petitioners have any role in printing, drafting or intentional publication in the news article. He also referred the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of CrPC and submitted that as per complainant, a loudspeaker was engaged by other accused in distribution of the pamphlets. He also submitted that there were sloganeering by some of the individuals and people have also gathered wherein speeches were made, but none of them have any proximity with petitioners. He also submitted that the evidence of complainant clearly suggest that it was a local incident which has actually occurred and explained by complainant and his witnesses, bu