THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2304 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. S r i K.Chidambaram who is appearing for the second respondent/ complainant is absent despite suﬃcient opportunity. Hence the matter is taken up for disposal despite the absence of Sri K.Chidambaram. 2. The two petitioners herein are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.45 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District (trial court). The second respondent herein ﬁled a private complaint which is registered as the aforesaid C.C.No.45 of 2009 against these two petitioners and also two others who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case. Accused No.1 is said to be town reporter of Vaartha daily newspaper at Bhimavaram and accused No.2 is said to be staﬀ reporter of the said newspaper at the same place. The accused No.3, the ﬁrst petitioner herein, is Editor of the said newspaper and he is a resident of Prathipadu, Pentapadu Mandal of West Godavari District, while the accused No.4 who is the second respondent herein is shown as the Printer and Publisher, Chairman & Managing Director and Managing Editor of the said newspaper. 3. In the complaint it is alleged that in the Vaartha newspaper issue dated 17.09.2008 circulated in West Godavari District a news item was published to the eﬀect that the complainant who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, One Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, neglected to attend a theft case and that thereafter on being reprimanded by the Superintendent of Police only he looked into that theft case that too on a news item published in the Vaartha newspaper circulated in that district. The grievance of the complainant is that that news item is totally false and it is published only to defame him. It is not necessary to go through the above claim of the complainant. 4. The averments in the complaint would read that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are directly responsible for publication of the above news item and they further contain allegations that the above news item is defamatory and the averments in that behalf would also read that the said news item is false and it injures the reputation of the complainant police oﬃcer. The contents of the news item would disclose that it is prima facie injurious to the reputation of the complainant police oﬃcer as it shows him that he is neglecting his duties. Of-course whether the contents of the said news item are true or false are matters to be decided by the court before which the case is pending. Hence, I am of the opinion that insofar as the ﬁrst petitioner is concerned i.e. accused No.3, it cannot be said that the complaint allegations do not disclose any oﬀence. It therefore follows that this petition insofar as the ﬁrst petitioner is concerned has to be dismissed. 5. Then coming to the case of the second petitioner who is shown as the Chairman and Managing Director and Managing Editor of the said newspaper, the complaint is not clear as to how the second petitioner who is staying at Hyderabad has been looking after the publication of news items in the newspaper in question which is circulated in West Godavari District. The only averment with regard to the second petitioner is that being the Chairman and Managing Director and Managing Editor of the said newspaper he is also responsible for publication of the said news item. In the absence of any deﬁnite material to show as to how the second petitioner is responsible for publication of the above news item, I am of the opinion that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against him and the proceedings against the second petitioner have to be therefore quashed. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition so far as the ﬁrst petitioner is concerned is dismissed, but so far as the second petitioner is concerned it is allowed and the proceedings against the second petitioner are quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly partly allowed. 7. Parting with the matter it is made clear that the trial Court can always exercise its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C with regard to the second petitioner also provided the evidence forthcoming warrants such a course. _____________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 2nd December 2011 CVRK