HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 45 of 2010 Reserved On: 14.7.2010 Decided on: 5.8.2010 Dinesh Chander ……… Petitioner. Versus Rajesh Sharma and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Petitioner in person. For the respondents: None. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Revision No.18 of 2009, decided on 24.10.2009, vide which he upheld the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.I, Una. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. as against the respondents alleging that some police officers of District Una instigated accused No.1 to get a news published in Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily concerning a false FIR with the intent to create ill-will against the complainant amongst the public in general. It was alleged that without verifying the facts, accused No.1 got published _____________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the news in the said Hindi Daily in its edition, dated 25.11.2005, and since the said news was false and accused No.2 approved the publishing of the said news in his newspaper, therefore, both the accused persons are liable to be summoned under Section 500 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant, who examined two witnesses. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.5.2009, the complaint was dismissed since no grounds were found to proceed against the accused persons for the commission of the alleged offence. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, dismissed the said revision petition. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard the petitioner in person and have gone through the record of the case. 7. The submissions made by the petitioner in person were that the allegations narrated in the news item and its headline, if read together, clearly make out an imputation which is per se defamatory concerning the petitioner, who is an Advocate, and the language is defamatory on the face of it and as such, the accused persons were liable to be summoned accordingly. He also took up a plea that the delay in filing the complaint should have been condoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate and as such the - 3 - impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the decision in The Advocate Co.Ltd. versus Arthur Leslie Abraham, A.I.R.(33) 1946 Privy Council 13. The petitioner also relied upon the decision in T.G. Goswami versus The State, AIR 1952 PEPSU 165, in which the following observations made in para 5: “To bring the publication of a scandalous imputation under the penal law, it is not necessary to prove that it was done out of any ill-will or malice or that the complainant had actually suffered from it. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended, or knew, or had reason to believe, that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. Every sane person is presumed to have intended the consequences which normally follow from his act. The accused, a journalist of some standing, can very well be presumed to know, or to have reason to believe that, the imputation published by him would harm the complainant’s reputation.” 9. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in State of H.P. versus Tara Dutt and another, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 125, in which it was observed that the period of limitation has to be determined with reference to the offences the accused was charged with and not with reference to the charges he was convicted under. 10. The other decisions relied upon were in Sewakram Sobhani versus R.K. Karanjiya, Chief Editor, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1514, Balraj Khanna and others versus Moti Ram, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1389, and Ganesan versus The - 4 - State, 1997 Cri.L.J. 126, which decisions need not be referred to in detail since the facts of these cases are different from the facts of the present case and the law laid down is not attracted to the present facts. 11. Needless to say that the complainant alleged about a news item, which was published in the newspaper. The said news item has been annexed with the complaint as C-I in which it was alleged that a case has been registered against an Advocate. According to the information available, the said Advocate had allegedly given beating to the police officers in the court premises. This is only the news item by which the complainant is aggrieved and has filed the present complaint. In so far as the news item is concerned, it refers to a fact that is regarding registration of a case against an Advocate. Once an FIR has been registered, it is a public document and neither the name of the person involved has been mentioned, nor it has been alleged that the complainant was in fact involved in the beating given to the police officers. The news item, in itself, cannot be said to be defamatory since it only proves the registration of a case, which fact was true and there are no findings that it has been held that the news item was incorrect or as to the fate of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in its impugned order, had considered the facts of the case and has clearly concluded that the said news item only reported that a case has been registered against an Advocate, which fact is not in dispute and, therefore, it was clearly found that no offence under Section 500 of the IPC was made out. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 5 - was rightly upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and once the powers of revision have already been exercised either by the learned Sessions Judge or by the High Court, these powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used in a routine since the law provides only one revision against such orders, which can be filed either before the Sessions Judge or the High Court. The said powers had been rightly exercised by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for an interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which stands dismissed. August 5, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge