DAINIK JAGRAN Vs. KRISHNA BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-applicant No.1 Shri Krishna Bhargava son of Piarelal Bhargava, a practicing Advocate and resident of Sironj, District Vidisha, on 22.8.1979, filed a complaint against the applicants and the non-applicants No.2 to No.5 under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the applicants published a news item on 17th August, 1979 and a letter on 18th August, 1979 purported to have been written by the nonapplicant No.2 in the Dainik Jagran which is published simultaneously from Bhopal and Raipur which are per se defamatory and lowers the prestige of the non-applicant No. I in the eyes of the public and his reputation as a practicing advocate.

(2.) This application by the applicants are for quashing the proceedings initiated against them and the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 5. Applicants submitted that the items published in the Dainik Jagran on 17th and 18th August, 1979 refer to one Kishanlal who is stated to be son of a person who is Prantiya Sanchalak of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh of Rajasthan and does not pertain to the non-applicant No. 1/complainant whose name is Shri Krishna, It was further argued that under the circumstances therefore, the complainant is not a aggrieved party as no reference has been made against him. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. I/complaint however, submitted that the items published in the said Dainik Jagran 17th and 19th August, 1979 refer to the non-applicant No. 11 complainant. It was submitted that the name of Kishanlal has been used deliberately and the news items referred to the complainant. The news item are also prima facie defamatory or lower the prestige of the non-applicant No. 11 complainant. The learned counsel for the nonapplicant No. I/complainant could not, however, place items published in the said Dainik Jagran of 17th and 18th August, 1979 before this court.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on either side and perused the material which are available on record, in my opinion, it is not possible to conclude that the name of Kishanlal which appears in these items refer to the non-applicant No. I/complainant. Kishanlal whose name occurs in these articles have been specifically stated to be son of Prantiya Sanchalak, Rasntriya Swayam Sevak Sangh of Rajasthan and this fact has been controverted in the complaint preferred by the nonapplicant No. 11 complainant by stating that the father of the non-applicant No. I/complainant was in Government service and that he has no connection whatsoever with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh. Under these circumstances, prima facie it is very difficult to take a view that the name of Kishanlal has been deliberately used indirectly to implicate the non- applicant No. 11 complainant. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the complaint prima facie fails to show that the name of Kishanlal is actually meant for the non-applicant No. 1/complainant. Non applicant No. 1/complainant whose name, as stated above is Shri Krishna. The items published oil 17th and 18th August, 1979 in the Dainik Jagran refer to certain incidents which the complainant states referred to him but in the absence of any material to show that the other names appearing are connected with the non-applicant No. 1/complainant, it is not possible to hold that prima facie case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant and the non- applicants No.2 to No.5. Under these circumstances in my opinion, further continuance of the complaint would be abuse of the process of the court and in order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the proceedings.