2nd accused in C.C.No.298 of 2001 on the file the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala seeks quashment of Annexure-I complaint.
2. The allegation in the complaint is that the 1st accused is the editor of a vernacular daily by name 'Latest Voice' published from Kanhangad. The complainant/2nd respondent contended that this paper was being circulated at Marangattupally within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. The complainant is a social worker and earnestly works for creating awareness among the public about menace of AIDS. On 27.06.2000, a news item appeared in the paper defaming the complainant under the caption ' ' ' ' The innuendo in the news is that the complainant along with another person had liaison with two ladies of loose virtue, took them in an autorickshaw and indulged in prostitution. According to the complainant, this news item is not only false but also highly derogatory and defamatory. Therefore, he filed the complaint against the accused, who Crl.MC No.2256/2011 2 are the editor and the chief reporter and correspondent respectively of the paper.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a reading of the complaint in its entirety, it can be seen that there is no averment in the complaint that the 2nd accused was the reporter and authored the news item. From the objectionable news item seen on the paper, it could be seen that the news was published at the instance of an own correspondent. Name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the paper. However, there is no allegation in the complaint to rope in the petitioner. Considering the materials before me and the averments in the complaint, I am of the view that in the absence of any specific case against the petitioner, it may be legally improper to direct him to stand a trial. Learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant is in the habit of filing false complaints. Another case filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as C.C.No.960 of 2001 against the accused in this case was dismissed by the court under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per judgment dated 25.03.2004. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of court.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-I complaint pending in C.C.No.298 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Crl.MC No.2256/2011 3 Court, Pala insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks