ROSHAN LAL (MASTER) Vs. KAMLA DEVI
LAWS(J&K)-1986-12-10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 05,1986

Roshan Lal (Master) Appellant
VERSUS
KAMLA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition under Sec 561 -A Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and the process by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri, on the basis thereof in the case titled Kamla Devi Vs. Master Roshan Lal, for an offence under Section 500/501 R. P. C.
(2.) THE petitioner is the editor of the Urdu Newspaper "DAILY SACH" Jammu. In his newspaper dated 12 -5 - 1981, an article was published in which certain comments were made with regard to the decision "of a case titled Suraj Parkash Vs. Romesh Chander and ors by the District Asstt. Custodian, Rajouri, who had allowed an application filed by Suraj Parkash pertaining to some allotment in favour of the evacuees. The said Suraj Parkash is the husband of the complainant. It was commented upon in the Article that the decision had been made in favour of Suraj Parkash etc. by the District Asstt. Custodian, Rajouri, wrongly and after receiving illegal gratification. On the basis of that article the complainant, Shrimati Kamla Devi w/o Suraj Parkash, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Rajouri, on 5 -10 -1981 alleging that the article in question contained false imputations and was intended to convey that the complainant had obtained the judgment in her favour after giving bribe of Rs. 4000/ - which was a false and baseless allegation. That by the publication of the Article, the complainant and her family had been lowered in the estimation of other and considerable harm had been caused to her reputation. That on coming to know about the article which had been published in the news -paper dated 12 -5 -1981, she had filed the complaint.
(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the preliminary statement of one witness and perusing the complaint vide order dated 5 -10 -1981 found a prima facie case under Sec. 500/501 R.P.C. and issued process against the petitioner. Mr. H.L. Bhagotra has appeared for the petitioner while no body appeared for the respondent though Mr. K.S. Puri had put in his appearance on behalf of the respondent and had filed his Power of Attorney on her behalf.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.