IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.90 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ The Editor Newspaper, Amar Ujala …….Petitioner Versus Mr. Budhi Singh & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Peeyush Bhardwaj, Advocate vice Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of complaint/case No.74-2 of 24/2017, titled as Budhi Singh Vs. Pushpa Devi & Others, filed under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh along with summing orders dated 18.05.2017 and 22.04.2024 issued by the afore Court, whereby the petitioner-accused has been summoned. 2. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that no case much less under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not Editor of Newspaper, Amar Ujala, at the time of publication of news, which is considered to be defamatory by respondent No.1. News item allegedly published by the Amar Ujala newspaper, thereby publishing the factum of lodging of FIR, nowhere attracts penal action, if any, under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code for the reason that same was based upon true facts i.e. lodging of FIR, coupled with the fact that name of the accused was never published in the newspaper. 3. Before afore prayer/contention raised at the behest of petitioner could be heard and decided on its own merits, respondent No.1, Mr. Budhi Singh, who has come present before this Court and is represented by Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, fairly states that he does not wish to pursue his complaint No. 74-2 of 24/2017 filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner 3 i.e. respondent No.4, in the complaint. His statement is taken on record. 4. In view of afore stand adopted by respondent No.1 i.e. complainant, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same is allowed to the extent that complaint No. 74-2 of 24/2017, titled as Budhi Singh Vs. Pushpa Devi & Others, filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, shall stand withdrawn/quashed against the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4, in the complaint. Needless to say, order passed in the instant proceedings shall have no bearing on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 i.e. complainant against other respondents No.1 to 3 in the complaint and same shall be decided in accordance with law. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 24, 2026 (sunil)