The petitioners are the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 346/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner.The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein and in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that by a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 21-12-2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the application (Exhibit 85) made by the petitioners, for recording their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"], afresh, be quashed and set aside, and that the learned Magistrate be directed to record the statement of each accused afresh.::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::On going through the copies of the record of the examination of the accused persons, as are annexed to the petition, I find substance in this contention.I find that, the questions put by the Magistrate are actually composite questions and each question consists of some sub-questions.It is obvious that, answers given to such questions cannot be properly comprehended.In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to elaborately discuss the matter, but by way of example, the Question No.13 put to the petitioner no.1 - Kalyan s/o.Sahebrao Patil - is taken into consideration.This question reads as under :" In the statement of witness no.2- Kanti Arjun Patil - it is stated that, on 28-7-2011, a news was published in the newspaper.In that, it was published that, the complainant was expelled from MNS.In that news item the message was that, by taking photos with superiors, a business was made.She read the news item in 'Punyanagari' ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 ::: (5) newspaper.She received phone calls from many women.How such news came out in respect of the complainant ?::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::Because of that news item, the complainant was defamed.What you have to say about this ?"The above question is answered as "हे खोटे आहे" (It is false).Now, this question consists of the statements that, on a particular date, a news was published in a newspaper.The question also states what was the matter published by way of said news.The question also says that, the witness no.2 read the news in a particular newspaper.The question also says that, thereafter, the said witness received phone calls from a number of women.The question also states that, the said witness then made inquiries with the accused no.2 (Not the petitioner no.1 who was examined).The quesetion also states that, the accused no.2 said that he would tender an apology.The question then finally says that, because of the publication of the said news item, the complainant i.e. the respondent no.1 was defamed.Now, the answer, 'It is false', cannot be properly understood, inasmuch as, it is not clear, whether the denial is in respect of publication of news, or about the matter containing the news, or about the witness no.2 having read that in a particular newspaper, or about the witness having received a number of telephone calls from certain women, or about the witness having made ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 ::: (6) inquiries with the accused no.2, about the accused no.2 having said that he would tender an apology, and ultimately about, that, because of the publication of the said news item, the complainant was defamed.The answer, 'It is false', would be the right answer even if the denial is in respect of any one of these facts.::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::

Relevant sections: Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code