Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11518 of 2009 dt.11-07-2011 1 Criminal Miscellaneous No.11518 of 2009 --------- In the matter of an application under section 482 Cr. P.C. --------- =========================================================== Narendra Nath Ojha S/o S. Narayan Ojha, Chief Editor, PRATHAM PRAVAKTA, Transmind Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C-6, Mezzanine floor, S.D.A. Commercial Complex, New Delhi-16 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar & 2. Prabhunath Singh, son of Shri Basudeo Singh, R/o Barharia, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party no.2: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chapra, in Complaint Case No. 2097 of 2006, by which he has taken cognizance under section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of complainant is that he belonged to a very well renowned family and had been nominated in many prestigious organizations as also that he was a Member of Parliament and is an important personality of the area. The allegation against the accused persons was that on account of political differences just to insult him and to malign his character in the June and July issue of quarterly Magazine “Pratham Pravakata” articles against the complainant had been published which was annexed with the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11518 of 2009 dt.11-07-2011 2 complaint. In the said article, he had been described in very derogatory terms which lowered his prestige in the society. On the basis of this complaint, cognizance was taken under section 500 and 501 Indian Penal Code. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, who was the Chief Editor of “Pratham Pravakata” stationed a New Delhi, it was submitted that the article was published without his knowledge and in his absence and it was published from Bihar as also that he being the Director of the firm M/s Transmind Technologies Pvt. Ltd. had entered into an agreement with Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Chaubey and had given franchise right to him to publish the current affairs Hindi News Magazine “Pratham Pravakata” in the territory of Bihar. To convince the bonafide of the petitioner, he has annexed the agreement which is Annexure-2. It is submitted that in view of Annexure-2, there is no manner of doubt that the article had been published in his absence and without his knowledge and he in good faith and trust had handed over the management of the paper to a competent person, who published the disputed articles. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submits that these are the matters of fact which may not be gone into at the stage of cognizance and whether the article was published in his absence or without his knowledge was a question of fact and, therefore, the petitioner was liable for prosecution. Further submission is that the agreement was a document of defence which could be raised only at the stage of trial. 5. Undoubtedly, the courts have to be sparing when exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C., but at the same time, if it is brought to the notice of the Court through unimpeachable document that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11518 of 2009 dt.11-07-2011 3 prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility, the Court will not restrict its jurisdiction. 6. On going through the agreement (Annexure-2) entered into between the petitioner as the Director of M/s Transmind Technologies Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at B-7 Extn/114A, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 through its Director, the petitioner and M/s Media Professionals, a partnership firm, having its registered office at 317, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-1(Bihar) through their partner Shree Rajiv Ranjan Chaubey, I find that the same was entered into on 30.07.2005, whereas, the offending articles were published in June and July, 2006. 7. Clause 7 of the agreement which is reproduced below shows that the petitioner as Director had taken care that all articles and features be impartial and had thereby taken precaution of the contents of the magazine. “7. That the Second Party shall ensure that reports, features and other editorial inputs prepared by their team must be impartial and shall not be violative of relevant acts including those of Press Council of India.” Further Clause 10 which is reproduced below specifically states that the disputes arisen from the Magazine would be sole responsibility of the Second Party, thus fixing the responsibility of the co- accused Rajiv Ranjan Chaubey, editor of “Pratham Pravakata”. “10. That any liability or dispute arising from the MAGAZINE shall be the sole responsibility of the Second Party, arising either from editorial or any other damage arising out of the Second Party’s operation of the MAGAZINE, the First Party shall be duly compensated by the Second Party.” Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11518 of 2009 dt.11-07-2011 4 8. Under the circumstances, when there is unimpeachable document (which is not denied by opposite party no.2) to demonstrate that the petitioner was nowhere involved in the publication of scurrilous articles against the complainant, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chapra, in Complaint Case No.2097 of 2006 is hereby set aside in so far it relates to the petitioner only. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 11th July, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-