Writ petition 624/2001 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 624/2001 RAJENDRA JAWAHARLAL DARDA AND ANOTHER VS. RAMCHANDRA DEVIDASRAO DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. Nirgude, J DATED : 24th March, 2011. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the applicants. Respondent No.1 party in person. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.2. 1. Heard. 2 This criminal application is filed for following reliefs. (a) This application may kindly be allowed, (b) Records and proceedings be called for, c) The proceedings in Criminal Case S.C.C. No. 918 of 1999 including the order of issuance of process be quashed and set aside. 3 The applicants are accused in Criminal case No. 918/1999 filed by the respondent No.1 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. Respondent No.1 in the complaint stated that he is a Writ petition 624/2001 2 journalist of repute. He stated further that applicant No.1 is the Editor of a news paper which is published at Aurangabad and applicant No. 2 is a journalist at Parbhani who looked after work of collection of news etc. in Parbhani district for applicant No.1’s news paper. The respondent No.1 alleged further that the applicants published news in their news paper in a corrupt manner. He said that they give in their news paper undue publicity to corrupt representatives of people. He said, by this method they collect lot of fund by corrupt means. He then stated that the applicants some how by corrupt method collect 60% of the Government advertisement quota and the remaining quota is then left to small news papers. Respondent No. 1 also stated that the news appearing in the edition of the news paper of the applicants dated 01/09/1988 and 31/05/1999 would prove his contention. On this allegation, he asserted that the applicants had committed offence punishable under section 499, 500, 501, 502 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording verification statement issued process against the applicants. The order of issuance of process is challenged in this application. The question therefore is whether the allegations made above constitute any offence. The Writ petition 624/2001 3 answer is in negative. The contents of the complaint of the respondent No.1 mentioned above by no stretch of imagination constitute any offence. In fact, the respondent No.1 himself made several imputations/allegations against the applicants in the complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate it seems, without application of mind mechanically passed the impugned order. The applicants challenged the legality of this order before the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in revision No. 95/1999 However, the revision was dismissed because the respondent No.1 on 18/08/2000 informed the learned Sessions Judge that he would withdraw the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge it seems, believed him and thought it fit to remand the case back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for completing the formalities of withdrawal. The respondent No.1 is present before the Court and when asked whether he withdrew the complaint, he informed that he would not withdraw the complaint. He in fact insisted that the applicant should attend the Court dates at Parbhani Court. 4 As mentioned above, the complaint does not make out a case for proceeding against the applicants for offence of defamation or for that matter any other offence. The maker of the complaint appears to be a Writ petition 624/2001 4 deranged person. Unfortunately, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not realise this and had passed the impugned order. It is also unfortunate that this case would remain pending before this Court for such long time. It deserved appropriate order long before. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/march24/criapln624.01/ok