IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9738 of 2008 1. SANJAY GUPTA, Editor, Dainik Jagran, son of Late Narendra Mohan Circle No.243, police station Budha Colony,Kidwaipuri, Patna. 2. Sunil Gupta, Director, Dainik Jagran, son of Yogenra Mohan, Daily News paper Circle 243, police station Budha Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna. 3. Anand Tripathi, son of Late Gauri Shankar Tripathi, General Manger, Dainik Jagran, Kidwaipuri police station Budha Colony, Patna. …Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority having its office at present at Indira Bhawan,6th Floor, Ram --------- Charitra singh Path Boring Road, police station Sri krishnapuri, patna, through its Assistant Development officer, BIADA. …Opposite parties For the petitioners :Mr.N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & :Mr. Nirbhay kr. Singh For the State :Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP. For BIADA(O.P.No.2) :Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate ---- 6. 12.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are Editor, Director and General Manager of a Newspaper named and styled „Dainik Jagran‟. They are aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2230(M) of 2007, whereby on the strength of a complaint lodged by the complainant (BIADA), cognizance under sections 385,499,500,501,502 and 120- B/34 including section 14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, has been taken against the petitioners. The complainant (BIADA) lodged a complaint through its Assistant Development Officer alleging therein that on going through a news item appearing in the daily called „Dainik Jagran‟, it was found that baseless allegations were made against BIADA and its - 2 - officials in order to tarnish the image of the Corporation and its functionaries. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order, states that similar/identical news were published in different newspaper wherein the complaint of the like nature was lodged giving rise to the order taking cognizance. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the accused(s) of those cases (functionaries of the newspaper of Times of India) moved this Court for quashing of the order in Cr.Misc. No. 49987 of 2007 with another analogous case. The matter was heard at a great length and this Court by an order dated 18.08.2009, allowed those applications and quashed the impugned order(s). Learned counsel for the petitioners handed in a copy of the said order which is placed on record marked as „X‟. While allowing the said applications, this Court observed as under: “Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners of both cases are abuse of the process of the court and the complainant a Government Authority is wasting public money and time in indulging in frivolous litigation. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding and the impugned order so far as the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.49987 of 2007 is concerned is hereby quashed. Similarly, the impugned order in Cr.Misc. No.50002 of 2007 is also quashed. Both the applications are accordingly allowed.” It is thus contended that the present proceeding should also be quashed as there is hardly any difference between the two cases. Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for - 3 - BIADA(O.P.No.2) handed in a communication dated 09.07.2010, issued by the Legal department of BIADA, addressed to him wherefrom it appears that the complainant already agreed in principle to file an application seeking compromise of the case. In fact a draft duly prepared and approved by the BIADA has already been handed over to the counsel conducting the case in the court below. Copy of the said communication handed in by Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan is kept on record marked as „Y‟. On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the documents placed before this Court, it appears that parties have decided to resolve the issue amicably in so much so an application seeking compromise has already been approved and is likely to be filed in the court below. Keeping in focus the fact that order taking cognizance has already been quashed by this Court in similar situation as also the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and an application seeking compromise is going to be filed before the court below in seisin of the matter, I am satisfied that this Court at this stage can interfere in the ends of justice. Consequently, the order dated 13.07.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2230(M) of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The application stands allowed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )