SITAKANTA MOHAPATRA & ANOTHER Vs. SANTILATA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Tathagata Satapathy and Dandapani Misra in Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 have challenged the impugned order dated 02.07.2001 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.52 of 1995 in rejecting their application for recalling the order dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in taking cognizance of offences under sections 500, 501 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them. The petitioners Sitakanta Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo in Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998 have challenged the impugned order dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.52 of 1995 in rejecting their application for recalling the very same order dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack. Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same case in which the applications filed by the respective petitioners to recall the very same order of taking cognizance and issuance of process have been rejected, with the consent of the parties, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The opposite party Santilata Choudhury (hereafter 'the complainant') filed the complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack on 06.04.1995 stating therein that she was an active social worker and a member of National Congress and was the Vice President of the Cuttack District Congress (I) Seva Dal and she was also the Secretary of Mahila Congress. It is further stated in the complaint petition that the petitioner no.1 Sitakanta Mohapatra (Criminal Revision No.375 1998) was defeated in the last assembly election and the petitioner no.2 Niranjan Sahoo (Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998) was a henchman of petitioner no.1 and was the President of Barchana Block Congress and both the petitioners were envious and zealous against the complainant as she was inducted in the Congress Seva Dal. Both the petitioners with their supporters called a meeting and published defamatory news items in the newspapers i.e. 'Dharitri', 'Pragativadi' and 'Matrubhasa' without any basis to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant with malafide intention. It is stated that the printer and publisher of the newspapers have not published the news items in good faith and by such publication, the complainant who had a social standing, reputation and respect was defamed and the general public formed a bad impression on the complainant after reading such items. It is further stated that the witnesses named in the complaint petition handed over the newspapers to the complainant and after going through the news items, the complainant sent pleader notices to accused nos.1 and 2 (petitioners in Criminal Revision No.375 1998) who did not reply to the notices and since the complainant was mentally upset, she thought it proper to take shelter in the Court of law. The complainant filed the news items published in 'Dharitri', 'Pragativadi', 'Matrubhasa' as well as the pleader notices to accused nos. 1 and 2 along with the complaint petition.

(3.) The learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack recorded the initial statement of the complainant and on being prima facie satisfied, took cognizance of the offences under sections 500 , 501 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 29.04.1995 and issued process against all the six accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioners in both the revision petitions.