Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 25: Court of Additional Sessions Judge Doda, while allowing a revision petition against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda in a defamation complaint titled Mushtaq Ahmed Vs Farooq Ahmed directed the trial court to examine the contents of video clip in question and only thereafter pass appropriate orders in the complaint in accordance with law and also take in account the allegations in the complaint in juxtaposition with preliminary statement of the complainant.
Petitioner/complainant had filed a criminal defamation complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda asserting therein that he is the teacher posted at Government Middle School Bhelli, Bharath; that on 12.05.2023 he was taking rest on Sofa in the teacher’s room during break period; that respondent is also posted as teacher in the same school; that while he (petitioner) was relaxing; respondent /Proposed accused prepared a video clip and circulated the same on different social media platforms with intention to defame him by injuring his reputation; that said video clip was also sent to a local news portal namely ‘Fair Voice News’ by respondent and same was made viral as a result of which, according to petitioner, he was wrongfully portrayed and he as such faced un-told embarrassment and his reputation was damaged as such etc. etc.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on 18.07.20223 by observing inter-alia, that allegation of preparing video while sleeping during break time does not have tendency of injuring the reputation of petitioner. Trial court also noted that petitioner could not place on record, the alleged video clipping which went viral.
Petitioner thereafter filed revision against aforesaid order of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
“The order impugned would clearly indicate that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has made a very broad statement of law by observing that preparation of a video clip depicting a Government servant while sleeping during break time in office-does not have the propensity to injure his /her reputation. This observation seems to have been made to furtherest stretch by Court below without even examining the content of video clip in question” held the Court while allowing revision.
Court further maintained, “None examination of contents of the video clip in question and then making vast and sweeping observation that petitioner/complainant had no case to seek indulgence of court below-itself underscores the implausibility of the finding returned by Court below in the order impugned”.
Court also observed that “there is nothing indicated in the order impugned to suggest that on the basis of allegations in the complaint read in juxtaposition with preliminary statement of complainant, there did not exist sufficient grounds for proceedings ahead in the complaint in terms of Section 204 of Cr.P.C”, adding, “In dubitably, reputation is one of the most significant valuables one does possess. Magistracy therefore would do well if it prudently deals with a defamation complaint within the contours and bounds of mandate of law as is in grained in chapters XV and XVI of Code of Criminal Procedure”.
With these observations, Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order of Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed him to pass fresh orders in the light the observations made in revision order.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel