1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2365 OF 2007 Hanumant Ramdas Harel ..Petitioner V/s. Dhondiba Keshav Jagtap & ors ..Respondents Mr.K.S.Patil, Advocate, for petitioner Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the 1st to 6th respondents alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued on the private complaint filed by the petitioner. In Revision Application preferred by the 1st to 6th respondents, the Sessions Court has interfered and has dismissed the complaint by quashing the Order of issuing process. 2 2. The petitioner claims that he is a resident of village Hiware, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. The 1st to 6th respondents are also residents of the same village. The petitioner at the relevant time was employed as a primary teacher at Mandalewadi, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. On 13th August, 2004 the villagers learnt about the news that on 2nd August, 2004 the record of the Primary School was burnt by some unknown persons. The 1st respondent being Head Mater of the School lodged police complaint. According to the case of the petitioner, he has a very meritorious record as a teacher and he has received rewards from different authorities from time to time on account of his performance as a teacher. It is stated that the 1st and 6th respondents who are also teachers have not received any rewards. It is stated that the 1st to 6th respondents conspired against the petitioner and got him transferred from village Hiware on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent. The police arrested the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner was instrumental in burning record of the School. It is alleged that the 1st to 3 6th respondents managed to get the news of the petitioner printed in daily news paper “Sakal”. After the petitioner was enlarged on bail, the petitioner made grievance against the 1st to 6th respondents with various authorities alleging that the said respondents had indulged in defamation. 3. It is alleged that 1st to 6th respondents were indulging in gossiping by telling that the petitioner has procured false Certificates and therefore, they will ensure that he will lose his employment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a prima facie material on record to proceed against the accused and the Sessions Court has committed an error by interferring with the Order issuing process. He submitted that specific allegations made in paragraph 8 of the complaint have not been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order was perverse. 4 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that in so far as publication of the news item in daily news paper “Sakal” is concerned, it was a publication of factual position regarding the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the offence of burning of the School record. The allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the complaint are based on gossiping indulged by the 1st to 6th respondents by telling public at large that the petitioner procured false Certificate and therefore, the respondents ensured that he is removed from the employment. The petitioner examined a witness by the name Ramchandra Babaji Tambe before the learned Magistrate before issuing process. The said witness merely stated that the accused person indulged in gossiping against the petitioner. However, he has not stated that the reputation or image of the petitioner was lowered in his esteem after hearing the gossiping. Even in the verification statement, the petitioner has not come out with a specific case that his reputation or image was lowered in the esteem of certain 5 persons. 6. The allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the complaint and the evidence of witness Ramchandra Babaji Tambe in support of the said allegations has been specifically considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 8 of his Judgment. There is no error in the impugned Judgment and Order by which it was held that no case of commission of offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. There is no merit in the petition and same is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)