Dismissed

Akhilesh Namdev v. Shahban Khan and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024CRMP/550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A newspaper reporter sought quashing of summons in a defamation complaint over a published news item. The court held that his defence that only the editor is responsible can be tested at trial and refused to interfere under Section 482 CrPC, dismissing the petition and vacating the stay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akhilesh Namdev Vs Shahban Khan and Others — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:43694

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 550 of 2018

¶6

1 - Akhilesh Namdev S/o Shri Reva Prasad Namdev Aged About 42 Years Reporter, Sahara Samay Electronic Media, R/o Vidyanagar Pendra, P. O. And Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Shahban Khan S/o Late Abdul Shakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Azad Chauk , Masjid Gali, Pendra, P. O. And Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .......petitioner/complaint, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Ashok Sharma S/o Late Ramlakhan Sharma Editor, Dainik Samachar Patra, Deshbandhu, R/o Near Girls College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur P. O. And Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o B/15, Mahima Tower, Near Rajiv Gandhi Chauk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .......Non petitioner No. 2

¶11

3 - Rajeev Ranjan Shrivastava S/o Devendra Shrivastava Aged About 40 Years Publisher, Dainik Samachar Patra, Deshbandhu, R/o Near Girls College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur P. O. And Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .......Non petitioner No. 3, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

			... Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate	Dy. Government

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11.11.2024

¶18

The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Revision No. 19/2014 against the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Case No. 529/2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has registered offence under Section 500, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶19

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent No. 1 has filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 499, 500, 120B/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner namely Akhilesh Namdev, Reporter in Daily Newspaper Deshbandhu, Ashok Sharma, Editor, Daily Newspaper Deshbandhu, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2) and Rajiv Ranjan Shrivastava, Publisher, Daily Newspaper Deshbandhu, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 3) alleging that on 21.01.2016 with intention to defame the present complainant/respondent No. 1 the aforesaid petitioner & respondents No. 2 and 3 have published an article in Daily Newspaper Deshbandhu alleging that the present petitioner has destroyed Arpa by dumping 100 trucks of soil in the source of river Arpa with intent to sell the said land. It has also been alleged by the complainant that land bearing khasra No. 2932/1 is personal property of the complainant, as such, this complaint is nothing but to defame the present petitioner, thus he has

¶20

3 / 4

¶21

filed the complaint.

¶22

Learned trial Court after recording statement of the complainant and considering the material placed before it has registered the complaint and issued summon to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the issuance of summon before the learned Revisional Court who vide order dated 11.01.2018 has rejected the revision. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred present Cr.M.P.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per well settled position of law for publication of any news, Editor is responsible and not the reporter. She would further submit that the petitioner has received information from reliable sources and on the basis of information only he has published the news. Thus, it cannot be said that it is deliberate action on the part of the petitioner to defame him. Thus, she would pray for allowing the present Cr.M.P. and quashing of the summons issued to the petitioner.

¶24

Per contra learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the land belongs to respondent No. 1 only and the petitioner has deliberately and mischievously published the news without asking any information from the present complainant, with malice intention to defame the complainant which is causing damage to his reputation in the society. Thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as learned Session Judge have not committed any illegality in registering the complaint or rejecting the criminal revision and would pray for dismissal of the Cr.M.P.

¶25

This Court vide order dated 20.03.2018 has stayed further proceeding of the learned trial Court and since then the matter is pending before this Court.

¶26

4 / 4

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Now this Court is considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has received information from reliable source and then only this news was published in Daily Newspaper Deshbandhu as such the Editor is responsible for publication of news, therefore, registration of complaint against him is illegal. This is the defence of the accused which can be ascertained only after recording of the evidence and materials placed before the trial Court by the accused. It is well settled position of law that while hearing petition Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry and this Court can intefere in an extreme circumstance only. This is not the case where extreme circumstance or on the face of issuance of summon is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Even otherwise in the complaint the Editor is also arrayed as party, where the accused can place materials regarding his innocence. Therefore, there is no ground to exercise power under Section Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

The interim order passed by this Court on 20.03.2018 is vacated and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Cr.M.P. is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Bhumika

Akhilesh Namdev v. Shahban Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akhilesh Namdev v. Shahban Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuwar Sai Vs Shri Alok Shukla

Ibrahim Khan Vs Shri Avinash Champavat

Ku. Seema Rathore Vs Abinash Mishra

Raja Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deenanath Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Randeep Narang Vs State of Chhattisgarh