1 2025:CGHC:8015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 703 of 2018 Akhilesh Namdev S/o Shri Reva Prasad Namdev Aged About 42 Years Reporter, Sahara Samay Electronic Media And Daily News Paper Deshbandhu, R/o- Vidyanagar Pendra, P.O. And P.S. Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aakash Sahu Keshav Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o- Village Vidyanagar, Pendra, P.S. And P.O. Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- In Charge Of Police Station, Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 14.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the Non-applicant/State. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and set aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District-Bilaspur, (C.G.) passed in Cr. Rev. No. 06/2017, passed in case of “Akhilesh Namdev Vs. Aakash Sahu (Annexure P/1) and further may kindly be dismissed complaint filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner (Annexure P/3)” Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the petitioner is reporter in Sahara Samay News Channel and sometimes works as reporter in Daily News Paper, Deshbandhu which is published in various State of India including Chhattisgarh. The respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- Pendraroad, District. Bilaspur, (C.G.) against the petitioner and two other persons namely Ashok Sharma and Rajeev Ranjan Shrivastava to the effect that the petitioner is reporter of Daily news paper, Deshbandhu whereas namely Ashok Sharma and Rajeev Ranjan Shrivastava are editor and publisher respectively of the said news paper. It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 herein is permanent resident and reputed businessman of Pendraroad. The petitioner with the intention to cause harm to his reputation published defamatory news on 09.01.2015 in Daily News Paper, Deshbandhu, Bilaspur Edition under heading (दहेज 3 ्ቚताडना मामले में 8 माह से फरार चल रहे आरोपी पतित को पत्नी से समझौता करने के कारण न्यायालय ्ቛारा जमानत मिमल गई है।). It is further alleged that it is wrongly published in aforesaid publication that the petitioner was absconded. In fact, the respondent No.1 never absconded. If he would have absconded, then police definitely prepared absconding evidence. It was further alleged that the petitioner without searching the true fact published the said defamatory news with malice intention. It is further alleged that petitioner along with other accused also published misleading news on 16.05.2012 and thereafter from 04.05.2014 they continued to publish misleading and defamatory news against the respondent No.1/complainant. It was also published that the father of complainant's wife namely Neelam Sahu had given diamond ring, gold ornaments, cash and other articles to the complainant as his capacity in marriage despite of it respondent No.1 and his family used to harass complainant's wife for demand of dowry whereas he and his family never demanded anything in marriage. It is further stated that as a result of publication of defamatory news, reputation of respondent No.1 and his family fell down and they are being seen by their community as culprits. Thus, the petitioner committed offence which is punishable under Sections 500/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned trial Court after taking evidence of respondent No.1, perusing the documents submitted by the respondent No.1 and calling report from concerned police station, vide order dated 4 24.09.2016 registered the complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 & 3 namely Ashok Sharma and Rajiv Tandon for offence punishable under Section 500/34 of I.P.C and directed to issue summons subject to payment of P.F. The learned trial Court without assigning any reason registered the complaint against the petitioner and non-applicant No. 2 & 3 namely Ashok Sharma and Rajeev Tandon. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner filed revision before revisional Court and vide impugned order dated 23.01.2018, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner upholding order passed by the learned trial Court. It has been held by learned revisional Court that after filing the complaint learned trial Court call upon the report from concerned police station in respect of allegation made in the complaint. The police given report to the effect that wife of respondent No.1 herein lodged a report for demand of dowry under Sections 498A/34 of IPC against the complainant/husband on which charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent No.1 herein before the competent Court, however no report has been given regarding absconding of respondent No.1. It has been further held that from perusal of document submitted by the petitioner which is certified copy of charge sheet of Cr. Case. No. 105/2014 related to offence under Sections 294, 506 of I.P.C., it appears that the said offence has been registered on 03.05.2014 and in the said Criminal Case, 5 respondent No.1 herein was released on bail on 28.11.2014 and thereafter till 28.12.2014, he did not appear before the concerned police station. Therefore, the police prepared absconding (Farari) Panchnama against the respondent No.1 herein however, Cr. Case No. 99/2014 related to offence under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C. and Cr. Case No. 105/2014 related to offence under Sections 294, 506 of I.P.C. are different. It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 failed to produce any document regarding absconding of the complainant in Cr. Case No. 99/2014. It has been further held that the petitioner herein is neighbour of complainant and he would be expected to know true fact. Thus it appears that due to malice intention with respondent No.1 and his family and to cause hurt to reputation of them alleged news is published. Therefore, prima facie offence under Sections 500 and 34 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner and there is no illegality in it. 5. The petitioner under Right to Information Act sought certain information from In-charge of Police Station, Pendra, District. Bilaspur, (Now Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi) and in response of which it was informed by In-Charge of concerned police station that Criminal Case No. 99/2014 for offence under Sections 498-A & 34 of I.P.C. was registered against the respondent No.1- Aakash Sahu in which Aakash Sahu was absconded from 03.05.2014 and he was arrested on 08.01.2015. At present case is pending before the Court concerned. Hence, this petition. 6 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The revisional Court while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct prospective resulting erroneous finding and consequent order. She further submits that while passing the impugned order, learned revisional Court has utterly failed to appreciate Section 5, 6 & 7 of Press and Book Registration Act, 1867 (In short Act). Under Section 7 of the Act, there is a presumption that the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper as Editor shall be held to be the Editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that publication and the production of a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed thereon as Editor shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence to prove the fact, and as the 'Editor' has been defined as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the presumption would go to the extent of holding that he was the person who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. The petitioner was neither editor nor he was in-charge Editor at that time when alleged defamatory news was published therefore he cannot be held responsible for publication of alleged defamatory news and no presumption would arise against him for publication of alleged news under section 7 of Act. She further submits that the petitioner is reporter only and he is not responsible for selection of alleged news and publication of it hence, learned trial Court 7 grossly erred in registering the complaint case against him. The complainant utterly failed to explain in his complaint that how the present petitioner is responsible for selection of alleged matter/defamatory news and publication of it in news paper. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in complaint. The learned trial Court registered the offence against the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner is neighbour of respondent No.1/ complainant and therefore with malice intention he published the alleged news in newspaper. Thus, the impugned order is based on apprehension hence liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complainant was absconded in Criminal Case No. 99/2014 related to offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of I.P.C. information from date of lodging FIR on 03.05.2014 and he was arrested on 08.01.2015 i.e. after eight months. Thus alleged news was published on the basis of record of Court and information obtained from police station and it was absolutely true, but learned Court utterly failed to appreciate this fact that the alleged news comes within fourth exception of Section 500 of I.P.C. and persons who are responsible for publication of the said news are protected under the aforesaid exception. However it is vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for publication of the said news and no offence is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that learned Courts below have failed to appreciate law laid down by this Court in the matter of Vivek 8 Goyanaka vs. State of C.G. & Anr." reported in 2012 (4) CGLJ page 74 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala & Anr", reported in AIR 1992 SC 2206. She also submits that the learned revisional Court ought to have allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and ought to have quashed the order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 10. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends 9 upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.M.Mathew (supra) held as under:- “9.In the instant case there is no averment against the Chief Editor except the motive attributed to him. Even the motive alleged is general and vague. The complainant seems to 10 rely upon the presumption under S. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ('the Act'). But S. 7 of the Act has no applicability for a person who is simply named as 'Chief Editor'. The presumption under S. 7 is only against the person whose name is printed as 'Editor' as required under S. 5(1). There is a mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that the person whose name is printed as 'Editor' is the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced. Section 1(1) of the Act defines 'Editor' to mean the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper'. Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of a person who is named as the Editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognise any other legal entity for raising the presumption. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is no presumption against him under S. 7 of the Act……. 10.It is important to state that for a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of know-ledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint in the instant case does not contain any such allegation. In the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with. To ask the Chief Editor 11 to undergo the trial of the case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person should be tried without a prima facie case. The view taken by the High Court is untenable. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside” 13. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, pleadings made in this petition and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court while issuing summons to the petitioner has committed grave legal error and the revisional Court while affirming the order of learned trial Court has also committed illegality, which warrants interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, in Criminal Revision No.6/2017 affirming the order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Raod in Criminal Case No.468/2016 is hereby set aside and consequent thereto, the complaint filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 15. The CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal