HT story & photo by Puru

 

Purusottam Singh Thakur vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 23 March, 2001

Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Purusottam Singh Thakur vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 23 March, 2001

Cites 6 docs - [View All]
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 501 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Citedby 1 docs
Chandan @ Ananda Jena And Three ... vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 4 May, 2005

Blog Links
powered by

Orissa High Court

Equivalent citations: 2001 I OLR 438
Bench: P Tripathy
Purusottam Singh Thakur vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 23/3/2001

ORDER

P.K. Tripathy, J.

1. Heard.

2. In this application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner prays to quash
the order of cognizance in I.C.C. No. 26 of 1999 of the Court of J.M.F.C.
Khariar.

3. It appears from the order dated 18.12.1999 that in the said complaint
after conducting an enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. learned J.M.F.C. took
cognizance of the offences Under Sections 500/501, I.P.C. and issued process
against the petitioner. Annexure-3 is the relevant publication wherein the
petitioner has highlighted regarding the land reforms being over shadowed by the
Gountias and influential persons in the helm of affairs so also the non-
governmental organisations. In that connection. in one of the column name of the
petitioner has been used as a Gountia as well as the executive of a non-
governmental organisation. Therefore, opposite party No. 2/complainant thought
that by such publication he has been defamed and accordingly filed the
complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhal argues that petitioner had
least desire to defame any individual much less the opposite party No.
2/complainant and the said article was published as a constructive criticism
against what is happening relating to the land reforms. Accordingly. he states
that a prima facie case for the offences either Under Section 500 or 501. I.P.C.
is not made out. During the course of hearing on being asked learned counsel for
the petitioner also states that petitioner is willing to publish in his
periodical i.e. "JANAMADHYAMA" a message notifying that he has no disrespect for
the complainant and in the impugned published item he had no desire or intention
to defame the complainant in any manner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2/complainant. on the
other hand, argues that the contents in the said publication substantially makes
out a prima facie case for the offence Under Sections 500/501, I.P.C. and,
therefore, the order of cognizance need not be interfered with by this Court.

6. After perusal of the news item and reading the provision in Sections 499,
500 and 501, I.P.C. this Court finds that the said article, is perhaps with a
view to make a constructive criticism of the prevailing system relating to the
land reforms. When the petitioner undertakes to get the matter clarified by
publishing a news item/message in the above noted manner, therefore, it is
directed that if the petitioner shall publish such a news item with due
clarification in his periodical within one month hence and shall file a copy of
that in the Court of J.M.F.C., Khariar within 45 days from today after serving a
copy on the complainant personally or through his counsel then learned J.M.F.C.
shall do well to recall the order of cognizance. There shall not be extension of
time in that respect. If such steps shall not to be taken and timely complied by
the petitioner then the complaint shall proceed in accordance with law.

The crl. misc. case is disposed of accordingly.