IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 107 of 2005 Date of decision: 24.6.2009 Naina Verma …Petitioner. Versus Pyare Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner was a news reporter, working for Punjab Kesri, a Hindi newspaper, circulating in Punjab, Himachal and Haryana States, in the year 2005. A news item, Annexure P-8 dated 27.1.2005, appeared in the said news paper, according to which, no development had taken place in the area of Gram Panchayat Khera, on account of its President and Vice President being at daggers drawn. Respondent Pyare Lal was Vice President of the Panchayat, at that time. 2. According to respondent No.1, Pyare Lal, who was Vice President of the Gram Panchayat, at that time, the aforesaid news was defamatory in nature. So, he filed a complaint, under Section 500 IPC against the present petitioner as also the Chief Editor of the news paper. Later on, he withdrew the complaint against the Chief Editor, but continued the same against the present petitioner. 3. Learned trial Court passed an order, under Section 204 Cr. P.C, Annexure P-11, summoning the present petitioner as an Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… accused. Now the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the summoning order as also the complaint itself. 4. I have heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also gone through the copy of news item, Annexure P-8. 5. What has been reported, as per this news item, annexure P-8, is not a defamatory material, but bonafide criticism of an elected representative of people, which an elected representative, in a democratic set up, is supposed to face and he should be knowing about such possibility, before entering the arena of elections. 6. In view of the above stated position, petition is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure P-11, is set aside and the complaint proceedings, instituted by respondent Pyare Lal against the petitioner, are quashed. June 24, 2009 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J