Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. - (1.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 16.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2006 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sambhal, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 77/09 of 2006, Tarif Singh vs. Manjeet Kaur, under sections 500/501 I.P.C., P.S. Naksha, District Moradabad pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sambhal, Moradabad.
(2.) Heard learned applicant's counsel and learned A.G.A. Record has been perused.
(3.) Submission of the counsel is that applicant was at the relevant point of time secretary of the committee of management of Lakhauri Inter College, Lakhauri, Moradabad. The president of the Committee was Tarif Singh. It had so happened that opposite party no.2 Tarif Singh was got removed from the post of the President by a resolution dated 8.4.2006. The counsel in this regard drew the attention of the Court to Annexure no-5 to the application. This resolution was also approved by the general body of the society on 28.4.2006 and the same finds place on record at page-52 and is also part of Annexure No.5. The same was communicated to District Inspector Of Schools vide letter dated 1.5.2006, which finds its place on page-54 as Annexure No-6 of the application. The DIOS wrote a letter dated 5.5.2006 in response and the same finds its place on page-55 as Annexure No-6 wherein it was directed that the further proceedings should be followed according to the resolution. As all these facts were available and were matters on record they got published in newspaper dated 21.5.2006. Submission is that it is this news which is said to have lowered the prestige of the opposite party no.2 who for the same reason has brought this criminal complaint against the applicant. Submission is that it is apparent on the face of record that there could not have been any intention on the part of the applicant to defame opposite party no.2. These were the developments of the Institution and even otherwise such developments get published in newspapers in usual course being matters of public interest. Learned counsel has even tried to show that case of the applicant will be covered under Exception 1 of Section 499 I.P.C.. Argument is that if this vital fact was not brought to be published then many people might have continued to have the same impression about the status of opposite party no.2 which existed before he was removed by the aforesaid resolution and therefore it was in public interest and for public good both that people at large should have known the true state of affairs. It is not a case in which some false imputation has been made or a non-existing fact has been informed to the press. The information that was conveyed was not at all misleading and simply contained a true account of statement of facts and therefore the present complaint is inspired by nothing except malice in order to exert coercive pressure upon the applicant so that he may not perform his legal duties in right earnest which he is otherwise required to do. Whether ultimately the resolution shall hold good or not and whether ultimately the opposite party no.2 will succeed to retain his position as president or not are questions foreign to the controversy. There was neither any mansrea on the part of the applicant nor any attempt to deceive anybody. Submission is that the perusal of the complaint itself does not make out offences at all as has been alleged and the continuation of such criminal proceedings shall result in nothing except the abuse of court's process.;