S.D.ANAND,J. - (1.) HARI Jai Singh, Editor-in-Chief, the Tribune and Bipin Bhardwaj, Correspondent, the Tribune have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to obtain quashment of the complaint dated 21.2.2000 (Annexure P3) and the summoning order dated 17.5.2000 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Trial Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts, relevant for purposes of disposal of the present controversy before this Court, are as under :- Respondent No. 1 - Jatinder Mohan Bajaj is an Advocate practising in the District Courts, Chandigarh. Respondents No. 2 and 3 (husband and wife inter- se) engaged him as their counsel in three First Information Reports bearing No. 16, 18 and 32 of 1998, pending in different Courts at Chandigarh. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were bailed out in those cases. In case F.I.R. No. 16 of 12.2.1998, the Court also ordered the release of passports in the name of respondent-Mustafa arid his brother Jamshid on sapurdaginama in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. Those two persons did not fulfil the undertaking given by them to the Court through the aforesaid sapurdaginama that they will surrender their passports after the indicated period of time. Thereafter, there was some sort of bitterness between respondents No. 2 and 3 on the one hand and respondent No. 1 on other hand. Respondents No. 2 and 3 thereupon engaged Another counsel to represent them before the Court. Respondent No. 3-Mustafa lodged an F.I.R. No.0086 dated 17.2.2000, under Section 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police of Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. In the course thereof, he made an allegation of having been belabored by respondent No. 1 and certain associates of his when he (respondent No. 3) was on way to the Chamber of newly engaged Advocate. In the course of that F.I.R., a grievance was made of that fact that respondent No. 1 and certain associates of his when he (respondent No. 3) was on way to the Chamber of newly engaged Advocate. In the course of that F.I.R., a grievance was made of that fact that respondent No. 1 had (before the withdrawal of power of attorney in his favour) demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lacs from respondent-Mustafa in order to be able to finish off a case of his, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh. On getting an indicator of disinclination from respondent No. 3, respondent No. 1 held out a threat to him on 22.1.2000. A complaint, in the context, was lodged by respondent-Mustafa at the Police Post Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 22.1.2000. It was on account of the above report that respondent No. 1 was nourishing a grouse against Mustafa. The belaboring of respondent No. 3 by one of his associates was an outcome of that grievance.
(3.) THE petitioners published the above facts in their newspaper issued dated 21.2.000. In the face thereof, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter (Annexure P9) to the Chief Editor of the Tribune, offering clarification of the facts indicated in the relevant newspaper reporting and also informing the addressee "to bring on record the correct facts as per the details given in the above matter." The Chief Editor did the needful by publishing Annexure P2, vide which the refutation of allegations by respondent No. 1 was published in newspaper.;