Defamation process against an editorial director requires specific allegations, and Section 202 inquiry is mandatory for out-of-jurisdiction accused.

An editorial director cannot be subjected to criminal process for an allegedly defamatory publication unless the complaint pleads specific, substantive facts showing responsibility for the publication; a bare assertion of oversight is insufficient, and summons against such a person cannot be sustained. Where an accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, Section 202 CrPC requires a mandatory inquiry or investigation before process is issued; failure to conduct that inquiry vitiates the summons and ensuing proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and summoning process could be sustained against the editorial director in the absence of specific allegations and in view of the scheme of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; (ii) Whether the summons and criminal proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and summoning process could be sustained against the editorial director in the absence of specific allegations and in view of the scheme of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 5 and 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 creates a presumption against the editor whose name appears in the newspaper, because the editor is the person controlling selection of published matter. That presumption does not automatically extend to an editorial director. For criminal process to issue against such a person, the complaint must contain specific and substantive averments showing responsibility for the allegedly defamatory publication. A general statement that the person oversaw publications is insufficient to attract criminal liability or justify summons.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the editorial director, and the proceedings against that appellant could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the summons and criminal proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended, makes inquiry or investigation mandatory before issuing process where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The Magistrate must examine witnesses or otherwise conduct the required inquiry before summoning such accused. On the record, no such inquiry was conducted, and the complainant's statement alone was not sufficient to establish a prima facie basis for proceeding against the out-of-jurisdiction accused. The defect was not merely technical; it went to the validity of the process issued.

Conclusion: The summoning orders and the resulting criminal proceedings were vitiated for want of compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint, the summoning orders, and the impugned order were quashed against the appellants, bringing the proceedings to an end in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is not the statutory editor cannot be roped into criminal liability for publication of alleged defamatory matter absent specific allegations of control over publication, and process against an accused residing outside jurisdiction cannot be issued without the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---