IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M. O. No. 118 of 2007 Date of decision: 1.4.2009 Rajesh Sharma …..Petitioner Versus D.P.Sharma and others. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No.. For the petitioners: Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. For respondent-1 Mr. Sunil Chauhan,Advocate. For respondent-2 Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For respondent-3 to 6 Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J(Oral). In this petition, petitioner Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Correspondent of ‘Amar Ujala Daily’ has assailed the order of summoning him as an accused by the learned trial Court in complaint No. 200/2 of 2005 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly publishing the news item in ‘Amar Ujala Daily’ dated 22.2.2005 under the heading ‘BHATIJI KO GHANTON BAND RAKHA POLICE OFFICER NE” by which the complainant (respondent No.1) felt defamed. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2 The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant Sh.D.P. Sharma- respondent No.1 a senior I.P.S. Police Officer posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rules) in the State police headquarters at Shimla, has a property dispute with respondent No.4 Smt. Satya Devi and other family members regarding which civil and criminal litigation are pending. Said Smt. Satya Devi had filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehra against said Sh.D.P. Sharma alleging that her brother-in-law Sh.D.P. Sharma, who was the then Superintendent of Police intended to take over the house constructed by her husband forcibly and by taking undue advantage of his position implicated her along with her son Sh. Chander Kumar in a case under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police had arrested both of them. She also came to know that her daughter Anjana Kumari was kept locked inside the house constructed by her husband with a view to create evidence in a civil case and he had also tried to encroach upon the said property. On these allegations, the appropriate action was sought. With reference to the aforesaid complaint the news item appeared in ‘Amar Ujala Daily’ on 22.2.2005 which was allegedly got published on the information given by the petitioner herein. 3 Respondent No.1-D.P.Sharma contradicted this news and addressed a communication to the Director General of Police with his detailed version with a copy to respondent No.2 Sh.Atul Maheshwari, Editor Publisher and Printer, Amar Ujala Publications Ltd., informing him that the news item was incorrect and actuated with malice and further requested to conspicuously and completely publish his contradiction at the earliest. Thereafter ‘Amar Ujala Daily’ dated 25.2.205 published the information given by respondent No.1 with respect to the incident in question under the heading “KARVAYEE SE BACHNE KO BANAYA NAJAYAZ DABAV’. Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved and filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Magistrate against the petitioner and others and the learned trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence and issued the process against the accused persons including the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. The alleged offending news items (Ext.C- 1/A) published in ‘Amar Ujala Daily’ dated 22.2.2005 4 have been carefully perused by me. In fact this item contained the averments made in the complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate by respondent No.4-Smt. Satya Devi, and although it contained the name of respondent No.1 but a care was taken that his name did not figure in the said news item. Its contradiction was also published in the same paper on 22.2.2005 on the information supplied by respondent No.1. To constitute the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia requires that the imputation must have been with the intention or harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made which is sine qua non and is missing in this case. Neither the statement of the complainant nor the news items of aforesaid shows that the complainant was the real target of the attack by him, to cause intentional harm to him. There is only a self serving statement of the respondent on record which is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner even prima facie for the issue of process as an accused. Further the true representation of the facts as contained in the complaint filed by respondent No.4 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the news paper made in good faith also does not attract the said 5 offence. Thus, there is no reasonable ground to summoning the petitioner as an accused which in the instant case is an abuse of process. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the summoning of the petitioner as an accused in the instant case is set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial Court on 21.4.2009. The record of the court below be returned forthwith. Cr.M.P.Nos. 616/2007 & 617/2007. Infructuous. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 1, 2009(R)