M. Murtaza Husain - (1.) THESE nine applications under section 482 CrPC (new) have been filed by the applicants for quashing the proceedings of different criminal cases pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow u/S. 500 IPC and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. All these cases have arisen on the basis of different complaints filed by Sri. A. B. Shorewal, opposite party. The applicants of these applications are editors, printers and publishers of different newspapers, and also Chairman, Manager, Reporter etc., of different news agencies.
(2.) THE opposite party Sri A. B. Shorewal was formerly employed in the U. P. Police Service as Deputy Supdt., of Police. For some reason or the other he was placed under suspension. A Member of U. P. Legislative Assembly, namely Shri Sarvasukh Singh tabled certain questions in the Assembly eliciting details regarding suspension of the opposite party. While submitting reply to those questions an Hon'ble Minister of the U. P. Government namely, Shri Om Prakash Singh furnished certain informations about the opposite party to the House. One of the informations given by the Hon'ble Minister was that on 30-10-1969 the opp. party was found in suspicious circumstances near Pakistan Embassy. News about those replies given by the Hon'ble Minister were flashed in different newspapers, namely, the Aaj, the Amar Ujala, the National Herald, the Nav Jiwan, the Swatantra Bharat, the Nav Bharat Times and the Pioneer. Information was gathered by the editors, printers, publishers and reporters of those newspapers from news agencies known as Samachar Bharti and Hindustan Samachar. The contention of the opposite party in the different complaints filed by him against the applicants is that he was a highly respectable person belonging to a reputed family of Shorewals. He was a writer and poet and had published several books. He had contributed artilces and poems to various papers and periodicals and used to broadcast his poems from All India Radio. He was honoured by the management of a fortnightly paper 'Revolot' through appointment as its Honorary Chief Literary Editor. The opposite party was also associated with organisations like Lala Shital Pd. Shorewal Trust and a Girls Inter College of Etawah. He maintained that on account of malice, and in order to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party, the petitioners who were connected with different news agencies, flashed distorted news about replies given by the Hon'ble Minister Sri Om Prakash Singh at the floor of the House and also suppressed the information given to the House by Shri Roop Nath Yadava, MLA and an Ex- Minister, whereby the position of opposite party stood clarified, and the petitioners who were associated with newspapers referred to above had likewise published twisted news to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party and suppressed publication of such news which clarified the position of opposite party. The opposite party thus maintained that the petitioners were guilty of an offence under Section 500 IPC and other connected offences as detailed in different complaints. The learned Magistrate, in whose court the complaints were filed, perused the complaint's statement and documents filed by him and summoned the petitioners to stand their trial under section 500 IPC. The petitioners have now come to this Court with these applications. The first point urged on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the complaints filed by the opposite party against them were barred by Section 3 of the U. P. State Legislature Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1974 which Act, inspite of its subsequent repeal was applicable to the aforesaid complaints. Section 3 of the said Act runs as follows :- "3. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper or in respect of the supply by a news agency for publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as protecting the publication of any matter, the publication of which is not for the public good." A bare reading of the above section would reveal that it will apply to the publication in a newspaper of any proceedings of either House of U. P. State Legislature or in respect of news supplied by a news agency, provided that the said news contains a substantially true report of the proceedings and the publication is proved to have been made without malice and the published matter was for public good. Before coming to the conclusion whether or not the complaints filed by the opp. party against the petitioners are barred by the above noted Section 3 of the said Act findings of fact are to be given on three points, namely (i) that the impugned publication contained a substantially true report of the proceedings of State Legislature, (ii) that the publication was not made with malice, and (iii) that the impugned publication was, or was not for the public good. Those findings of fact have to be given by the courts which are dealing with the impugned complaints. This court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr PC, cannot enter into those questions of fact. The patitioners would be well advised to take up the plea of the bar of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act before the trial court, because this court cannot quash the proceedings of the impugned complaints at this stage unless the aforesaid findings of fact are given.
(3.) SECONDLY, it was argued on behalf of the applicants that taking the allegations of opposite party as they stand, no offence of defamation stands made out against the petitioners. I do not agree with this contention also. In a charge under Section 500 IPC the prosecution has to make out the following ingredients :- 1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person. 2. Such imputation must have been made- (i) by words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (ii) by signs; or (iii) by visible representations. 3. Such imputation must have been with the intention of harming, or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. Copies of the complaints filed by the opposite party against the applicants have been annexed to the present application. Their perusal would indicate that allegations concerning all the above noted ingredients have been made by the opposite party in his complaints. If the opposite party succeeds in making out those allegations, offence of defamation shall stand made out against the petitioners. Evidence in different cases has not been recorded by the Magistrate concerned as yet. It is neither possible, nor proper for this Court to express any opinion about the merits of the allegations made by the opposite party in his complaints, because those allegations are to be decided by the Court concerned. All that has to be seen by this Court at the present stage is whether or not the allegations made by the opposite party in his complaints, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, constitute an offence against the applicants as alleged. Thus looked, the allegation of the opposite party in his complaints do make out an offence of defamation against the petitioners. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant has made such persons as accused who had no direct concern with the publication of news items in question. The liability of different persons arrayed as accused in different complaints for the publication of the impugned news items is to be decided by the Court concerned when the cases are taken up for hearing. It is not possible for this Court to express any opinion on that point at this stage. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the case in question cannot be quashed on the ground that allegations of the opposite party in his complaints do not make out any offence against all or some of the applicants.;