IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.98 of 2010. Judgment Reserved on: 11.07.2011. Date of decision: 05.08.2011. Avinash Chopra … …Petitioner Versus Chandra Thakur & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3: Mr.T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent No.5: Mr.Pushpender Kumar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a complaint instituted by the respondent Shri Chandra Thakur, Advocate, under Sections 323, 355, 500 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The complaint, which is filed alongwith the petition, states that the complainant is practicing as an Advocate in District Court, Una. In a divorce 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled: Jyoti Mankotia vs. Bikram Singh, she appeared on behalf of respondent Bikram Singh and represented him in the Court of learned District Judge, Una. Statements of both the parties were recorded in the Court in presence of the Advocates. She identified respondent Bikram Singh and has appended her signatures under those of Bikram Singh on his statement. Smt.Jyoti Mankotia and her advocate also appended their signatures on the statement. The divorce petition was accordingly allowed. 3. The complaint then continues that when she was sitting in the room of the Advocates, Jyoti Mankotia and Mastan Singh, entered the hall and assaulted her. The first respondent Jyoti Mankotia caught hold of her by the throat and slapped her. Respondent No.2 Mastan Singh, at the relevant time, was instigating her to do this. He abused her in loud voice and shouted that they would kill her. In the commotion she was saved by the intervention of the persons sitting in the room which included Advocates. These two accused ran away, threatened her with dire consequences and yelled that she would be dealt with appropriately. The complaint pleads that the police intervened and meeting of the Bar Association, Una was held condemning this incident. There was a strike in the Bar on 4.6.2004. So far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he is the editor of the `Punjab Kesari’ 3 and the pleading with respect to his involvement is that a news item was published in the `Punjab Kesari’ on 2.6.2004 with the intention to lower her character which caused harm to her reputation and her standing as a lawyer in the society. The complaint then says that the news continued to be published despite the fact that correct reporting had been made in the `Dainik Jagaran’ in its issue of 30.5.2004. 4. The petition is silent about the period or as to what happened from 2004, when the case was filed to 2010, when this petition is filed. The only averment is that the date of hearing is fixed for 2.6.2010. The order has been challenged on the ground that the learned trial Court has not acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before issuing process under Section 204. Neither the Court has inquired into these allegations nor directed the police to conduct any such inquiry. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has no role in the publishing and printing the article/news item and he cannot be held liable for the offence. Reference has been made to Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to urge that the proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioner because his name is not printed in the newspaper as printer or publisher and he cannot be held liable. 4 5. Before adverting to these submissions, I must notice that Cr.M.M.O. No.69 of 2006, titled: Jyoti Mankotia vs. Chandra Thakur, was instituted against this very order by Jyoti Mankotia challenging it on a number of grounds. The Court by a detailed order on 25.8.2008 held that the order could not be faulted with. The concluding portion of the order reads:- “Prima facie, the statement of the respondent duly supported by the statement of Vikram Singh and Smt.Negi Kaur makes out a case for summoning the petitioner for the offences under Section 323, 355 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing a detailed order while issuing summons. It has been held by the Apex Court in U.P. Pollutio Control Board –v- M/s Mohan Meakins Limited, AIR 2000 SC 1456 that the process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate has not passed the speaking order. As a matter of fact, at the stage of an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, it does not partake a character of a full dress trial which can only take place after the process is covered under Section 204 of the Code, as per procedure. But during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the complainant whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put a proposed accused on a regular trial and no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such an inquiry. 5 In the instant case, the Magistrate has specifically ordered the petitioner to be summoned under the specific Sections finding sufficient grounds to put the petitioner on regular trial. Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order and there is no requirement to pass a speaking order as to how he was satisfied to come to that conclusion. Hence the petition is dismissed. The record of the trial Magistrate be returned forthwith.” 6. This order was passed on 25th August, 2008 and I find again that these proceedings are back in this Court in the year 2010 without having made any progress. The record shows that the case was instituted in 2004 and till 2010 precious little progress has been made. It seems that the respondents are litigating in tandem. True that the petitioner herein submits that he is the Editor of a newspaper and cannot be held liable for any statements/printing etc. as it has not been done with his consent etc. But then this is a matter to be decided at the time when evidence is led and not at this stage. To say that there is a legal bar to continue with the complaint on certain grounds as urged which would require proof, even that can be urged as a preliminary point with respect to the maintainability of the complaint. It is not merely sufficient to urge it as a point of law without in any manner supporting it by facts. 6 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition which is rejected. A direction is issued to the trial Court that it will not be necessary for the petitioner to attend Court on each and every date of hearing except when absolutely necessary and/or required. Such exemption granted by this Court shall not be used by the petitioner to urge that evidence of the prosecution etc. has been recorded. Petition is accordingly disposed of. August 5, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.