IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 815 of 2011 Chandra Shakhar @ Chandu Bailwal S/o Late Sri Khimanand Bailwal R/o Village Sunderpur Bailwal P.O.Kunwarpur, (Haldwani) P.S.Haldwani, District Nainital ………………............Petitioner Versus 1. Sanjay Gupta, editor 2. Dherendra Mohan, Publisher Both of the Dainik Jagran, Hindi Newspaper, Jagran Press Develchor, Raipur Road Haldwani, District Nainital ………….........Respondents Shri R.S.Sammal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.08.2011, passed by 2 Additional Sessions Judge/ First Fast Track Court, Haldwani, in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2009, where by said court has affirmed the order dated 30th of September 2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2289 of 2009. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have erred in law in not directing to summon the accused/respondent in respect of defamatory news item published in Daily Dainik Jagran dated 2nd of March, 2009, Nainital Edition. In the news item it is reported that the arms license was issued to a person having criminal history. It is further mentioned in news report that present complainant Chandra Shakhar @ Chandu Bailwal to whom arms license was issued is a person involved in assaulting one Dinesh Pandey, a Journalist. The present complainant Chandra Shakhar has alleged that no First Information Report was lodged against him at Police Station Lalkuan, in respect of alleged, as such, the entire report is false. (4) Perusal of the impugned order passed by the courts below shows that the two courts below have applied their minds to the facts of the case, and found that it was not a fit case for summoning the accused 3 in respect of the news report which could be correct or incorrect, but it was for the public good. Apart from this, it has been observed by the revisional court that the ingredients of the offence defined under section 499 I.P.C., are not made out as against the respondents. Since, the two courts below have applied their minds to the facts of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below, in the factual matter. (5) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.09.2011 N.P