CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 1 of 21

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on : 03.03.2026

Pronounced on : 12.03.2026

Uploaded on : 12.03.2026

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced: Full

CRM(M) No. 124/2020

Sanjay Gupta & Anr.

…..Petitioners

Through: Mr. Atul Raina, Advocate

Vs

Prem Kumar

.….Respondent

Through: Ms. Meenakshi S. Salathia, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR , JUDGE

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioners, through the medium of the present

petition, have challenged the complaint filed by the

respondent against them alleging commission of offences

under Section 500 RPC which is stated to be pending

before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1

st Class,

Samba, (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Magistrate’) .

Challenge has also been thrown to order dated

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 2 of 21

24.04.2017 passed by the learned trial Magistrate

whereby process has been issued against the petitioners.

02. It appears that a complaint came to be filed by the

respondent against the petitioners before the learned trial

Magistrate alleging therein that the

respondent/complainant is a business man dealing i n

repairing of computers having his shop at Ramgarh,

Samba. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1-Sanjay

Gupta is owner of newspaper Dainik Jagran whereas

petitioner No. 2-Abhimanyu Sharma, is the Chief Editor

of said newspaper.

03. It was alleged that the petitioners without going into the

truth of the matter published a news item that the

respondent is an over ground worker of militants and

that he along with other persons was taken into custody.

In the news item it was further alleged that the

respondent has direct links with top militants including

‘Azahar Masood’. Thus, petitioners had knowingly

published a defamatory news item against the

respondent due to which his image has been lowered in

the eyes of his relatives and other members of public at

large. It was also alleged that the news item published in

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 3 of 21

the newspaper “Dainik Jagran” at the behest of the

petitioners is fabricated and despite serving a legal notice

upon the petitioners they did not tender any apology.

Copy of the news item was placed on record by the

respondent/complainant along with his complaint.

04. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the statement

of complainant and one witness passed the impugned

order dated 24.04.2017 whereby after taking cognizance

of the offence it was observed that the petitioners have

prima facie committed offence punishable under Section

500 RPC, as such, there are sufficient ground s for

proceeding against them.

05. The petitioners have challenged the impugned complaint

and proceedings emanating therefrom on the grounds

that petitioner No. 1 is only responsible for general policy

of the newspaper and that there are separate Resident

Editors who are responsible for selection and publication

of the news items. It has been further submitted that

petitioner No. 2 is looking after the affairs of the

publication as printer and editor. It has been submitted

that the petitioner No. 2 is responsible for every act and

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 4 of 21

omissions with respect to the publication of the news

items published in the newspaper under reference.

06. It has been submitted that the news item that is subject

matter of the impugned complaint was already in public

domain and it was based on the information received

from the investigating agency that was investigating the

Nagrota attack. It has been contended that the learned

trial Magistrate ought not have issued the process

against the petitioners as it interferes with their right of

freedom of speech and expression.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case.

08. Before analyzing the facts emanating from the record of

the trial court, it would be apt to notice the legal

positions as regards the scope of power of High Court

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interfere with the

proceedings/complaint before a Magistrate.

09. The legal position in this regard has been laid down by

the Supreme Court in its various judgment including the

judgments delivered in the cases of State of Haryana

and others V. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1)

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 5 of 21

SCC 335 ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another V . Special

Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 . It

has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that in

a case where allegations made in the complaint and

evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose

commission of any offence and make out a case against

the accused, the High Court can exercise its powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings

against an accused. However, the inherent powers cannot

be exercised to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings.

10. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now deal

with the contention raised by the petitioners is that the

complaint made by the respondent before the trial

Magistrate does not disclose commission of any offence

by the petitioners inasmuch as the imputations made in

the newspaper against the respondent were already in

public domain on the basis of reports furnished by the

investigating agency and that there was no intention on

the part of petitioners to harm the reputation of the

respondent. On this basis, it is being contended that

publication of the news item in question does not satisfy

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 6 of 21

the ingredients of offence of defamation as contained in

Section 499 of RPC.

11. Before determining the merits of the aforesaid contention

of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer to the

provisions contained in Section 499 of RPC which defines

the offence of defamation. It reads as under :-

“499. Defamation – Whoever by words either

spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or

by visible representations, makes or

publishes any imputation concerning any

person intending to harm, or knowing or

having reason to believe that such

imputation will harm, the reputation of such

person, is said, except in the cases

hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1. – It may amount to

defamation to impute anything to a deceased

person, if the imputation would harm the

reputation of that person, if living, and is

intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his

family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2. – It may amount to

defamation to make an imputation

concerning a company or an association or

collection of persons as such.

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 7 of 21

Explanation 3. – An imputation in the form of

an alternative or expressed ironically, may

amount to defamation.

Explanation 4. – No imputation is said to

harm a person’s reputation, unless that

imputation directly or indirectly, in the

estimation of others, lowers the moral or

intellectual character of that person, or

lowers the character of that person in respect

of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the

credit of that person, or causes it to be

believed that the body of that person is in a

loathsome state, or in a state generally

considered as disgraceful.

First Exception – Imputation of truth which

public good requires to be made or published

– It is not defamation to impute anything

which is true concerning any person, if it be

for the public good that the imputation

should be made or published. Whether or

not it is for the public good is a question of

fact.

Second Exception – Public conduct of public

servants – It is not defamation to express in

good faith any opinion whatever respecting

the conduct of a public servant in the

discharge of his public functions, or

respecting his character, so far as his

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 8 of 21

character appears in that conduct, and no

further.

Third Exception – Conduct of any person

touching any public question – It is not

defamation to express in good faith any

opinion whatever respecting the conduct of

any person touching any public question,

and respecting his character, so far as his

character appears in that conduct, and no

further.

Fourth Exception – Publication of reports of

proceedings of Courts – It is not defamation

to publish a substantially true report of the

proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the

result of any such proceedings.

Explanation – A Justice of the Peace or other

officer holding an enquiry in open Court

preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is

a Court within the meaning of the above

section.

Fifth Exception – Merits of case decided in

Court or conduct of witnesses and others

concerned – It is not defamation to express in

good faith any opinion whatever respecting

the merits of any case, civil or criminal,

which has been decided by a Court of

Justice, or respecting the conduct of any

person as a party, witness or agent in any

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 9 of 21

such case, or respecting the character of

such person, as far as his character appears

in that conduct, and no further.

Sixth Exception – Merits of public performance

– It is not defamation to express in good faith

any opinion respecting the merits of any

performance which its author has submitted

to the judgment of the public, or respecting

the character of the author so far as his

character appears in such performance, and

no further.

Explanation – A performance may be

submitted to the judgment of the public

expressly or by acts on the part of the author

which imply such submission to the

judgment of the public.

Seventh Exception – Censure passed in good

faith by person having lawful authority over

another – It is not defamation in a person

having over another any authority, either

conferred by law or arising out of a lawful

contract made with that other, to pass in

good faith any censure on the conduct of

that other in matters to which such lawful

authority relates.

Eight Exception – Accusation preferred in good

faith to authorized person – It is not

defamation to prefer in good faith an

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 10 of 21

accusation against any person to any of

those who have lawful authority over that

person with respect to the subject-matter of

accusation.

Ninth Exception – Imputation made in good

faith by person for protection of his or other

interest – It is not defamation to make an

imputation on the character of another,

provided that the imputation be made in

good faith for the projection of the interest of

the person making it, or of any other person,

or for the public good.

Tenth Exception – Caution intended for good

of person to whom conveyed or for public good

– It is not defamation to convey a caution, in

good faith, to one person against another;

provided that such caution be intended of

the good of the person to whom it is

conveyed, or of some person in whom that

person is interested or for the public good.”

12. A bare reading of the afore-quoted provision, makes it

clear that an offence of defamation is made out whenever

a person by words spoken etc., makes or publishes any

imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or

knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 11 of 21

will harm the reputation of such person. The offence,

however, would not get attracted if a case falls under any

of the ten exceptions quoted hereinabove.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy

V. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, while interpreting

the provisions of Section 499 of IPC observed that for

constituting an offence of defamation, it must be shown

that the accused had intention or had reason to believe

that such imputation would harm reputation of the

complainant. Thus, mens rea is a condition precedent to

constitute the offence. There has to be an intention or

knowledge on the part of the accused to cause harm to

the reputation of the complainant. Without intention or

knowledge, the offence would not be constituted.

14. When it comes to freedom of press, it has to be noted that

a newspaper or a media house is free to obtain

information from all kinds of sources and to propagate

the same amongst the readers/viewe rs which is a

fundamental right. However, the said right is subject to

the reasonable restrictions, inter-alia, on the ground of

defamation as contemplated in Clause (2) of Article 19 of

the Constitution. Thus, while a newspaper has right to

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 12 of 21

dissemination of information obtained from antagonistic

sources but it cannot disseminate false imputations

against a person as the same is restricted in terms of

Clause (2) of the Article 19 of the Constitution.

15. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, let us now

analyze the facts of the present case. In the news item

which is the basis of the impugned complaint, the

headline when translated into English reads as under :-

OGW-Prem has made a big disclosure upon his

questioning.

16. The news item goes on to state that the respondent-Prem

Kumar, who is a resident of village Nanga of Ramgarh, an

over ground worker of militants, has during the

questioning disclosed that the attack at Army Regiment

at Nagrota, Jammu and BSF Chowki at Ramgarh Sector

is revenge of Pakistan against Surgical Strike. It goes on

to state that Prem Kumar was arrested from his village as

he had provided a vehicle to the terrorists of Lashkar-e-

Taiba (a militant organization) for accomplishing the

attack at Nagrota, Jammu. In the news item, it is also

stated that upon further questioning of

respondent/complainant, there is possibility of arrest of

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 13 of 21

more over ground workers. Another news item is also

carried in the same newspaper according to which shop

of respondent/complainant was subjected to search.

17. A bare perusal of the aforesaid news item would reveal

that contents thereof are, per-se, defamatory against the

respondent as he has been projected as over ground

worker of terrorists having deep connections with them.

It has also been alleged that he has rendered assistance

to the terrorists in accomplishing the attack on security

forces at Nagrota and Ramgarh. Branding a person as

over ground worker of terrorists or stating that the

person has links with terrorists ex-facie lowers the image

of such person in the estimation of those who know him.

18. The contention of the petitioners that they ha d no

intention to cause harm to reputation of the respondent

while publishing the said news item cannot be accepted

because Section 499 of RPC brings within its purview not

only a case where the person making or publishing any

imputation intends to harm him but it also brings within

its purview a case where a person has knowledge or has

reason to believe that such imputation will harm the

reputation of the person against whom imputation is

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 14 of 21

made. So even if it is assumed that there was no

intention on the part of the petitioners to harm the

reputation of the respondents while publishing the

offending news item still then having regard to the nature

of the news item, it can prima facie be stated that they

had the knowledge that the said news item would harm

the reputation of respondent/complainant.

19. The other contention that has been raised by the

petitioners is that the offending news item was already in

public domain and it was based upon the briefing given

by the investigating agenc ies/security forces. The

offending news item nowhere suggests that it is based

upon briefing of security agencies or investigating

agencies. The particulars of the investigating agency or

the institution which has given such a briefing to the

correspondent of the news paper is not mentioned or

disclosed in the news item. The petitioners have not

placed on record anything to show that the offending

news item was already in public domain nor have they

given any particulars in this regard. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioners in this regard, cannot be

accepted. The question whether the imputations

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 15 of 21

published in the offending news item are true or the

same are based upon accounts given by any State

agency, can be decided only during trial of the case, and

not in these proceedings particularly in the absence of

material on record in this regard.

20. An additional contention has been raised by the

petitioners for challenging the impugned complaint so far

as it relates to petitioner No. 1. It has been submitted

that the said petitioner has nothing to do with the

offending news item as he is not the editor of the

newspaper. It has been contended that petitioner No. 2 is

responsible for looking after the affairs of the publication

of Jammu edition of “Dainik Jagran”. In this regard, a

copy of ‘Form of Declaration’ published in the news paper

has been placed on record which goes on to show that

petitioner No. 2 happens to be the editor for J&K edition

of the newspaper . The question that arises for

determination is as to whether in these circumstances,

impugned complaint so far it pertains to the petitioner

No. 1 can proceed further.

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 16 of 21

21. In the above context, the relevant provisions of Press and

Registration Books Act, 1867 are required to be

noticed. The same are reproduced as under :-

Section 1 – Interpretation clause

‘Editor’ means the person who controls the

selection of the matter that is published in a

newspaper.

‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical

work containing public news or comments on

public news.

Section 5

Rules as to publication of newspapers. No

newspaper shall be published in India,

except in conformity with the rules

hereinafter laid down:

(1) Without prejudice to the

provisions of section 3, every copy of

every such newspaper shall contain

the names of the owner and editor

thereof printed clearly on such copy

and also the date of its publication.

(2) ……”

Section 7

“Office copy of declaration to be prima

facie evidence. In any legal proceeding

whatever, as well civil as criminal, the

production of a copy of such declaration as is

aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 17 of 21

empowered by this Act to have the custody of

such declarations, or, in the case of the

editor, a copy of the newspaper containing

his name printed on it as that of the editor

shall be held (unless the contrary be proved)

to be sufficient evidence, as against the

person whose name shall be subscribed to

such declaration, or printed on such

newspaper, as the case may be, that the said

person was printer or publisher, or printer

and publisher (according as the words of the

said declaration may be) of every portion of

every newspaper whereof the title shall

correspond with the title of the newspaper

mentioned in the declaration, or the editor of

every portion of that issue of the newspaper

of which a copy is produced.”

22. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that

a newspaper has to mention the names of its owner and

editor so as to ensure transparency in publication. It is

further manifest that a statutory presumption arises

against the editor who is responsible for selection of the

content for its publication in the newspaper thereby

making him accountable unless rebutted.

23. The Supreme Court has in the case of K.M. Mathew V.

K.A. Abraham & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 670 after noticing

the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1867, held as under

:-

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 18 of 21

“14. A conjoint reading of these provisions

will go to show that in the case of publication

of any newspaper, each copy of the

publication shall contain the names of the

owner and the editor who have printed and

published that newspaper. Under Section

7 of the Act, there is a presumption that the

Editor whose name is printed in the

newspaper as Editor shall be held to be the

Editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in

respect of that publication and the

production of a copy of the newspaper

containing his name printed thereon as

Editor shall be deemed to be sufficient

evidence to prove that fact, and as the

'Editor' has been defined as the person who

controls the selection of the matter that is

published in a newspaper, the presumption

would go to the extent of holding that he was

the person who controlled the selection of the

matter that was published in the newspaper.

But at the same time, this presumption

contained in Section 7 is a rebuttable

presumption and it will be deemed as

sufficient evidence unless the contrary is

proved. Therefore, it is clear that even if a

person's name is printed as Editor in the

newspaper, he can still show that he was not

really the Editor and had no control over the

selection of the matter that was published in

the newspaper. Section 7 only enables the

court to draw a presumption that the person

whose name was printed as Editor was the

Editor of such newspaper, if the publication

produced in the court shows to that effect.

15. The contention of the appellants in

these cases is that they had not been shown

as Editors in these publications and that

their names were printed either as Chief

Editor, Managing Editor or Resident Editor

and not as 'Editor' and there cannot be any

criminal prosecution against them for the

alleged libellous publication of any matter in

that newspaper.

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 19 of 21

16. The contention of these appellants is

not tenable. There is no statutory immunity

against Managing Editor, Resident Editor or

Chief Editor against any prosecution for the

alleged publication of any matter in the

newspaper over which these persons exercise

control. In all these cases, the complainants

have specifically alleged that these

appellants had knowledge of the publication

of the alleged defamatory matter and they

were responsible for such publication; and

the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of

the offence held that there was prima facie

case against these appellants. It was under

such circumstances that the summonses

were issued against these appellants.

24. From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear

that Act of 1867, does not recognize any other legal

entity, namely, Chief Editor, Managing Editor etc., for

raising a presumption, however, such individuals can be

proceeded against only if there are specific allegations

made against them. The Act of 1867 only recognizes

Editor for the purpose of holding him responsible in any

civil or criminal proceedings in respect of publication of

the newspaper.

25. In the present case, as per the declaration made by the

newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ Jammu edition, petitioner

No.2 happens to be its Editor. Even in the declaration

published in the newspaper, the said petitioner is shown

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 20 of 21

to be the Editor. Therefore, presumption under Section 7

of the Act of 1867 arises against him and he is

responsible for the selection of content in the newspaper.

In the petition itself the petitioners have admitted that

petitioner No. 2 is looking after the affairs of publication

of the Jammu edition of the newspaper. Thus, petitioner

No. 2 cannot escape his liability in respect of the

offending news item.

26. When it comes to the petitioner No. 2, he is shown to be

owner of the newspaper. This is clear from a bare perusal

of the impugned complaint. There are no specific

allegations with regard to his role in selecting the

offending news item against the said petitioner in the

impugned complaint. It is nowhere alleged that he was in

any manner associated with the selection or publication

of the offending news item. In the absence of any such

allegations, prosecution against petitioner No. 1 can be

sustained.

27. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

petition is partly allowed and the impugned complaint

and the proceedings emanating therefrom to the extent of

petitioner No. 1- Sanjay Gupta are quashed whereas the

CRM(M) No. 124/2020 Page 21 of 21

impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating

therefrom as against petitioner No. 2 shall continue.

Thus, the petition to the extent of petitioner No. 2-

Abhimanyu Sharma, is dismissed.

28. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial

Magistrate.

(SANJAY DHAR )

JUDGE

JAMMU

12.03.2026

SUNIL

Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes

Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes