1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2404 OF 2008 Rajendra Ramdas Choudhari .. APPLICANT VERSUS Adv. Pankaj Vasantrao Deshmukh & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri P.P. Chavan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri D.B. Thoke Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Complaint presented by the complainant alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code was posted for recording of evidence on 15-5-2008. Complainant and his counsel were absent on the given date. As such, the complaint came to be dismissed and the accused are acquitted of the charge. Order passed by the trial Magistrate on 15-5-2008 dismissing the complaint presented by the petitioner is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 I have perused the complaint presented by the complainant before the trial court. Complaint is in respect of publication of news item in newspaper “Dainik Bajirao” on 20-11-2004. The news item is in respect of presentation of a petition at the instance of one Adv. Pankaj Deshmukh in the High Court. It appears that the complainant is holding he post of Councilor in the Municipal Council and petition against him came to be 2 presented by advocate Pankaj Deshmukh seeking his disqualification on the ground that he has committed encroachment over the Government land. It is the contention of the complainant that as a result of publication of news item, he has been lowered in esteem of general public. The news item has thus caused his defamation which is punishable under section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the complaint, I am of the opinion that no offence can be said to have been made out. News item in respect of presentation of petition at the instance of advocate Pankaj Deshmukh is merely a matter of publication of the newspaper. News item itself is not at all defamatory in nature. Apart from this, complainant is an elected member of Municipal Council and as such he cannot be so sensitive in respect of scrutiny of his work by the general public or any publication in that respect in the newspaper. Apart from this, as stated earlier, news item in itself does not appear to be defamatory. Infact, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process in the matter as no offence is made out on perusal of the complaint. The fact that when the matter was listed for recording of evidence, since 31-5-2007 on all the subsequent dates, the complainant remained absent and did not prosecute the complaint, is also a factor which is required to be taken into account. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Magistrate has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint on account of default of the complainant. Application seeking leave to file appeal presented by the complainant is devoid of substance and hence rejected. Consequently, appeal fails and stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln2404.08.odt