1 crwp186-09 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2009 Madanlal Thapar .. Petitioner V/s. Onkarsingh Gujral & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Joshi i/b. Ms. Poorvi Kamani for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the respondent – State. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original complainant. The petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate alleging commission of an offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint is based on a publication of a news item in daily Indian Express. The News item was that the petitioner was arrested for grabbing a land of a senior citizen in Ludhiana. The news item records that the petitioner produced forged documents which were challenged in the Court. 2. The learned Magistrate issued process on the complaint. 2 crwp186-09 A Revision Application was preferred by the accused Nos.4 to 8 before the Sessions Court. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Revision Application has been allowed by holding that the publication was made of a true and correct statement of fact. It was held that the knowledge and intention on the part of the accused cannot be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the complaint. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the news item was published by the concerned respondents after the police submitted a report seeking discharge of the petitioner. He pointed out that subsequently, an order of discharge was passed by the concerned Criminal Court. The learned Magistrate observed an offence was made out from the complaint and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had correctly issued process. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 8 supported the impugned Judgment and order. He has tendered a statement in writing under the instructions of respondent Nos.4 to 8 in which it is stated that the said respondents are willing to publish a clarification in the Express Newsline of the daily News paper Indian Express. The text of the clarification proposed to be published has been incorporated 3 crwp186-09 in the said statement. The said statement is taken on record and is marked “X” for identification. 5. I have perused the averments made in the complaint and the news item published in “Newsline”. The report records that a complainant complained to the Court at Ludhiana making allegation of property grabbing by the petitioner of his property situated at Bhandup in Mumbai. The News paper report records that the petitioner failed to attend the concerned Court and, therefore, the Punjab police executed non bailable warrant against the petitioner with the help of the Mumbai police. 6. The correctness of what is stated in the news item published in the News paper has not been disputed by the petitioner. Though, the discharge of the petitioner was applied for prior to publication of news item, an order of discharge was passed after the news item was published. In the impugned Judgment and order, in paragraph No.11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed thus: “11. The decisions relied upon by both the parties are not exactly on the point before me. The main question, as I said is that whether the complainant makes a case for defamation and answer to that is on going through the complaint and the news item, it is not defamatory article but it is publication of the truth of the fact which was accepted by the Complainant. Therefore, this is not the case of defamation. So also, the knowledge and intention on the part of the accused, 4 crwp186-09 therefore, cannot be gathered from the averments in the complaint. Merely by saying that the accused had intention and knowledge to defame the complainant. Hence, the issuance and process is not legal and proper.” 7. What was published was a statement of fact. The existence of intention and knowledge in the present case cannot be inferred. Now, the fourth to eight respondents have offered to publish a clarification. The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth to eight respondents on instructions is accepted. 8. Apart from the aforesaid statement, it is obvious that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is legal and proper and no interference is called for. Subject to acceptance of the statement made by the respondent Nos.4 to 8, the petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)