D.K. Sinha, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 276 of 2000 wherein, after finding a prima facie case on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, processes were directed to be issued against the accused including the petitioner Hari Bansh Narayan Singh, by the order dated 13.6.2001.
2. The complainant- Sheo Prasad Agrawal alleged in the complaint petition against Kameshwar Sharma, Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shri Haribansh (petitioner herein), Chief Editor, Prabhat Khabar, Ranchi and Harinarayan Singh. The complainant was having Savings Bank Account No. 659 in the Ranchi University Branch of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. On 24.2.2000, he had visited the said Branch of the Bank for verification of his account but since it could not be verified for the alleged non co-operation, he had sent a complaint to the Head Office and since then, the Branch Manager was nursing grudge against him. It was further alleged that a news item was published on 13.4.2000 in the newspaper under the caption. 'NETA SE PARESAN SHAKHA PRABANDHAK NE GUHAR KI' and below that, it was mentioned therein that the complainant had taken loan from different Banks though he denied having obtained any loan amount from the named Banks. He further narrated that the matter in respect of publication of news item was conveyed to him by his friends Arvind Kumar, Shankar Gupta and Mukesh and as such his prestige and position lowered down especially in the eyes of his near and dears.
3. Learned Counsel Mr. Manoj Tandon, at the outset submitted that the petitioner was admittedly the Chief Editor of the daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' published from different places and he was not responsible for selection of the news for its publication in the newspaper under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The news which was published in the newspaper was based upon the written complaint, addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi by the Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi University Branch, Ranchi and therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible. An another written complaint was made by one Seema Chaturvedi before the Officer-in-charge of the Sukhdeonagar Police Station, Ranchi by which she alleged against the complainant. Sheo Prasad Agrawal that he was using her name at different places for his personal gains. Mr. Tandon further submitted that the aforesaid news in relation to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 was published with due diligence and care, as such, no case under Section 506 of the Indian Penal code was attracted against the petitioner-Chief Editor who was not responsible for publication of the news items in the newspaper. Every newspaper used to carry written undertaking, owing responsibility by the concerned Authority/Editor under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 in relation to authentication of declaration under Section 6 and Section 7 of the Act. Mr. Tandon clarified that in every issue of 'Prabhat Khabar', there used to be declaration under Section 7 of the Act that the responsibility for the publication of any news item was attached with the 'Resident Editor' whereas the petitioner was the Chief Editor of Prabhat Khabar, not at all responsible for any kind of news items published in the said daily.
4. Mr. Tandon submitted that Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code dealt with punishment for criminal intimidation,
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
5. Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code which speaks,
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
6. The petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2003 for setting aside his criminal proceeding including the process issued against him in the Complaint Case No. 276 of 2000 but it was dismissed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner Xth, Ranchi on 11.8.2004. The said criminal revision was dismissed solely on the ground that the order impugned which was challenged in the criminal revision was interlocutory in nature as such, not revisable and that the petitioner had no locus standi to move for dropping of his case in a summons trial.
7. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him which caused unnecessary harassment to him for no fault of his being the Chief Editor, not at all responsible for publication of news item as per declaration and that it was the Resident Editor of Prabhat Khabar, who was responsible for the publication of any news item in the daily newspaper. Even if the news was published, it was based upon the written complaint of Kameshwar Sharma, Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commence, Government of India Undertaking, addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station in respect of alleged maltreatment extended to him at the hands of the opposite party No. 2 Sheo Prasad Agrawal. Conduct of the complainant- Sheo Prasad Agrawal was further assailed by one Seema Chaturvedi in her written complaint, addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Sukhdeonagar Police Station, Ranchi in which she alleged that Sheo Prasad Sharma was using his name for gains and in view of tine declaration under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 petitioner Hari Bansh Narayan Singh, Chief Editor, cannot be held criminally liable for publication of news item in Prabhat Khabar.
8. Heard the learned Counsels or the parties.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the statement of the complainant delivered on solemn affirmation in Complaint Case No. 276 of 2000, I find that though he had stated having lodged the complaint against Kameshwar Sharma, Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi University Branch, Ranchi, the petitioner Shri Haribansh, Chief Editor, Prabhat Khabar, Ranchi and Harinarayan Singh but no specific allegation was attributed against the petitioner Chief Editor except the averment that his prestige was lowered down in the eyes of his friends for publication of news item in the newspaper, though without specifying the name of the concerned newspaper and that the entire allegation was directed against the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi University Branch, Ranchi.
10. I further find from the documents as well as declaration as made in the newspaper in observance of mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 that it was none other than 'Resident Editor' if at all, was responsible prima facie for the publication of news items in the newspaper without prejudice to his defence.
11. On the point of law as well, I do not find that the petitioner Hari Bansh Narayan Singh at any point of time caused criminal intimidation within the definition of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 so as to attract punishment under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. I observe that the prosecution failed on both the counts and therefore, criminal proceeding of the petitioner cannot sustain in Complaint Case No. 276 of 2000. Accordingly, criminal proceeding of the petitioner Hari Bansh Narayan Singh in the said case including the impugned orders dated 4.9.2002 and 8.1.2003 are quashed. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.