IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5758 of 2008 ARVIND UJJWAL, Son of Shri Uma Shankar Verma, resident of 23 SG Tower, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastrinagar, District-Patna. .....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Subash Sharma, Son of late G.D.Sharma, the then Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna............................................................Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Krishna Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 4. 14.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State and the B.S.E.B. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.07.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna, in complaint case no. 2234C of 2004 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 500 and 501 of the I.P.C. The complainant is opposite party no.2 by name. The notices were issued to O.P. No.2 vide order dated 07.11.2008. The office note dated 27.04.2009 suggests that the notices have been served upon O.P. No.2. Though counter-affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board being authorized by the Bihar School 2 Examination Board. The O.P.No.2 personally neither appeared through his lawyer nor filed any counter-affidavit in spite of valid service of notices. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an Advocate of this Court and a legal reporter in the “Hindustan” a Hindi Daily Newspaper reported a news item with regard to the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16191 of 2001. In paragraph no.17 of the said writ application, there were certain allegations against the present O.P. No.2, who was respondent no.4, in the said proceeding. On the basis of that Hon’ble High Court observed as follows: “If what is contained in paragraph no.17 is correct, then the person, who was the Administrator, can not become the Chairman”. The publication of this observation on the report of the petitioner offended the O.P.No.2 which led to filing of the present application and consequential order of cognizance has been passed. 3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner bonafidely reported the matter what transpired during the proceedings and he had no intention to defame the O.P. No.2 and regrets if any way the alleged publication hurt the feelings of O.P. No.2. Mr. Girijesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board has submitted that the publication was not accurate as per the proceeding but he can not say that the alleged publication amounts to defamation. Apparently from the records, it appears that the intention of the petitioner was not to defame the O.P.No.2. In view of the aforesaid discussions, particularly since O.P. No.2 in spite of receiving the notice chose not to appear, I do hereby quash the order of cognizance dated 29.07.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in complaint case no. 2234C of 2004. The application is allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)