Vijay Kumar Jain And ANR. v. Maansingh Thakur
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 434 of 2015
1. Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Aged About 50 Years Purva Unit Head, Patrika Samachar Patra, Deep Hotle Ke Paas Link Road Bilaspur, Jila Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Haal Mukam Patrika Samachar Patra Karyalaya Indore, Madhya Pradesh
2. Jinesh Jain S/o Shri M.N.Jain Aged About 50 Years Haal Mukam Patrika Samachar Patra Karyalaya Raipur, JilaRaipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
Maansingh Thakur S/o Jivrakhan Lal Thakur Aged About 59 Years Occupation- Service, S.D.M. Janakpur Bharatpur, Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicant :
Mr. R.K. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 23.11.2017
1. This petition is against the order dated 25.09.2014 which shows that a complaint u/s 500 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner on 27.08.2014.
2. A perusal of the petition shows that it is pleaded that certain publication was made in the newspaper against the respondent. Being aggrieved by said act, the respondent filed complaint u/s 500 of IPC before the JMFC wherein, the notices were issued to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the notice cannot be issued to them since they are not in the helm of affairs. A perusal of the petition would also show that except the order of JMFC which is about the issuance of notice u/s 500 of IPC on a complaint filed by Maan Singh Thakur, nothing has been placed on record to
connect them with the alleged crime. The petitioners herein if at all are aggrieved by such issuance of registration of complaint under section 500 of IPC can very well go before the concerned court and place all the records to show that they were not in the helm of affairs of the said newspaper. In absence of any document filed along-with this petition, whatever the pleadings made in the petition u/s 482 of Cr.PC. cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. Merely by reading the order of JMFC no finding can be arrived at by this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.PC., especially when no documents have been placed. Therefore, I do not find any reason warranting interference in such order. Consequently, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o