W IN THE HONqgLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. ?>¥ (200 haw $émh APPLICANT (Complainant) Dr. Deepak Kumar Verma S/o. Manikchand Soni, aged about 32 years, Permanent Resident of Bhilai, Police Station— Su‘pela, District— Durg (C.G.) Present address Subhash Chowk Niharika, Police Chowki - Rampur, Korba, Tahsil and Distt. — Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Dr. V.K. Soni, S/o. Shri Sunder Lal Soni, aged about 50 years, R/o Dhamdha Naka (wrongly mentioned in order sheet DhamdhanaLa) Kaiiash Nagar Durg, Police Station— Mohan Nagar Durg,’Tahsil & Distt. - Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENT (Accused) yr” PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Court of Session Judge, Korba—f-Distt. -Korba, W HIGH CGEERT BF CHEA’FTESGAW AT BXLA$§§3R 8% : EGN’3LE MR. JUS?E@E PRETIR§§ER DXWAKER CR M? {W3 357idi3E08 AP?L§CAZ€T T Dams ~§ Aumai Verw VETSU$ EGN-&P?LICAI€T Dr. V. K. Soni Shri ijushpandra Kumar PataL 00111“ L ior 1c apw 1cm: ?ETITK)E E§E§DER SE‘S’I‘E$N 482 Q? ’Z‘HE CEiJlC. @wER g25.03.26m§ Hmrd on admission. Th6 wrekm‘t petmon fligd under Sziction 48:2 612?.(3. i$ directsd agamst tha arder dated 04.04.2008 passad' by ihe Sessions Judge, Korba in CLREV. N0. 18j2007 whereby allowing tbs ravision as filed by the respondent chaLienging the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by me Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Korba in C1‘.Case No. 158/ 2007. 2. Brief facts of he case are that on 18.9.2006 a complaint case was med by the appiicant seeking registration of the offence under Section 500 EPC against the respondent Accordmg to the pennoner he 1s mnnmg one “PC Alternatwe Medlcai College at Korba and the ald college 1s duly recogmzed by the counsel of alternative medicine, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the daily newspaper of Korba on 19.7.2006, 22.7.2006 and 26.7.2006 the a(ivemsement has been issued by the respondent who is running one National Education Academy at Durg and in the said adveitisement a caution note has been given for the students to be careful {rem those educational institutions which. are not recognized. According to the complainant; in the said ativertisement name of only four educational institutions have been given showing them to be recognized institutions and further \ i i i t @ stating that there are number of other educatioxlal institutions in the State who are divertirxg The people Though they axe not recognized. 3. Contention of the couneel for The complainant is that though his instimtion is recognized but as the name of his mstitu‘rion has not been pubiished by the respondent in the advertisement, on account of the said publication the students are not coming in his college and thereby the respondent has defamed him. 4. After recording the statement under Section i200 Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate has directed for the registration of the ott‘ence under Section 500 IPC against the respondent vide order dated 7.2.2007. The order of the Magistrate was assailed by the respondent before the revisional Court. and vide order impugned the revisional Court has set. aside the order of the Magistrate by holding that such publication of the advertisement does not amount to defamation of the petitioner and the same is only in respect of the respondent’s institution by which he has cautioned the general public to take admission only in the recognized educational institutions. It has also been held by the revisional Court that the advertisement has been issued by the respondent in the public interest and therefore the provisions of Section 500 IPC are not attracted. x 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no illegality in the order impugned passed by the revisional Court. Moreover, after appreciating the evidence, the revisional Court has given well reasoned findings and in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. such well reasoned finding cannot be interfered._ The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. V Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge