S. No.15

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No.355/2021

CrlM No.1217/2021

Haji Hilal Mehmood Dar

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Mehraj-ud-din Kathoo, Advocate

V/s

Waheeda Mir and Ors

….. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr.Ateeb Kanth, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

02.08.2022

1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has

challenged order dated 31.03.2021, passed by learned 4^th Additional

Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents

herein against order dated 30.04.2016, passed by learned Special

Mobile Magistrate (PT&E), Srinagar.

2. It appears that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against

the respondents as also against Krishna Prasad, Chief Editor of

Outlook Magazine and Madam Preeka, Journalist Outlook

Magazine before the trial Magistrate alleging commission of offence

under Section 500 RPC. In the complaint it was alleged, that on

15.02.2016, a defamatory news item against the petitioner came to

be published in Outlook Magazine in which it was stated that the

petitioner had molested his maid servant. According to the

SARVEEDA NISSAR

2022.08.08 08:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CRM(M) No.355/2021

complainant/petitioner this defamatory news item was published by

the aforesaid magazine with the aid and assistance of respondent

No.1, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner, and the other

respondents. Learned trial Court after recording the preliminary

evidence of the petitioner passed order dated 30.04.2016 in which it

was observed that offence under Section 500 RPC appears to have

been committed by the accused and accordingly the process was

issued against them.

3. It appears that accused Krishna Prasad, Chief Editor of Outlook

Magazine challenged the aforesaid order by way of a revision

petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The said

revision petition came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judge

in terms of order dated 09.05.2018. While allowing the revision

petition, the learned Sessions Judge has inter alia observed that on

the basis of the article it cannot be stated that any defamation has

been caused to the petitioner. The order of learned Sessions Judge

Srinagar has attained finality. The question that arises is, whether in

view of the observation made by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge in his order dated 09.05.2018, prosecution against the other

accused can proceed further.

4. Apart from the above, a perusal of the complaint filed by the

petitioner reveals that the petitioner had alleged that defamatory

posters were pasted by respondents in Ompora Budgam. Therefore,

another question that is required to be determined is as to whether

SARVEEDA NISSAR

2022.08.08 08:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CRM(M) No.355/2021

the Magistrate at Srinagar had the jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint and issue the process against the respondents.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Revisional

Court, whereby the order of the learned Magistrate has been set aside

and he has been directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the

observations of the Revisional Court, is well founded.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition.

The same is dismissed accordingly. The learned trial Magistrate is

directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law

and pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made herein

before.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate for

information and compliance.

(S