Allowed

G.Sanghi v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2023CRLP/990/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash defamation proceedings filed against newspaper editors. The court held that an inadvertent mistake in reporting election vote counts, which was subsequently corrected, did not constitute defamation or harm reputation, and continued proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2016 against the petitioners are quashed, and all pending applications stand closed.

G.Sanghi Vs State of Ap — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.990 of 2019

¶3

Between: 1) Mr.Gireesh Sanghi, S/o Ram Sharan Sanghi, Aged 70 years, Occupation : CMD and Managing Director, Vaartha Telugu Daily, R/o Sanghi Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana. 2) Damerla Sai Baba, S/o Akkapa Naidu, Aged 68 years, Occupation: Editor, Varrtha Telugu Daily, R/o Flat No.21-B, Shantinikethan Apartments, Road No.5, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners And 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court Buildings at Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2) Mamidipalli Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Surya Narayana Murthy, Aged 52 years, Occupation: Legal Practitioner, R/o D.No.2-14, Balanthram Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. …. Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 13-02-2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. 3. Whether Their ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment? ____________________ NAINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶4

¶5

***** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.990 of 2019

¶7

%Date : 13.02.2023

¶8

# Gireesh Sanghi & another

¶9

- - Petitioners

¶10

And

¶11

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor & another

¶12

- - Respondents

¶13

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.V.Sai Kumar & Mr.Ravula Nagarjuna

¶14

^ Counsel for Respondents : Leaned Public Prosecutor

¶15

Mr.Mamidipalli Venkata Subba Rao

(Party-in-person)

< GIST : --

> HEAD NOTE : --

? Cases referred : --

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.990 of 2019

¶22

Between:-

¶23

Gireesh Sanghi & another … Petitioners

¶24

And

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

¶26

Mamidipalli Venkata Subba Rao … Respondents

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.V.Sai Kumar & Mr.Ravula Nagarjuna

¶28

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor

¶29

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Mamidipalli Venkata Subba Rao (Party-in-person)

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard

¶32

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned party-in-person/ 2^nd respondent.

¶33

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First

¶34

Class Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District.

¶35

The 2^nd respondent filed a complaint under Sections 190(1)(a) & 200 Cr.P.C against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, inter alia

¶37

contended that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, though

¶38

¶39

the ingredients of Sections 499 and 501 of IPC are not attracted. He submits that while publishing a News item in respect of General Elections, 2014 of Andhra Pradesh Assembly in the year 2014 in Varatha Daily Newspaper an inadvertent mistake occurred in reporting the News. It was mentioned/published on 17.05.2014 that the B.S.P candidate/2^nd respondent secured 1,039 votes, but noticing the same, within 4 days a News item was published on 21.05.2014 stating that in the News item dated 17.05.2014 by mistake it was published that B.S.P candidate got 1,039 votes, but it is 1,938 votes. The learned counsel submits that the subsequent publication of News item on 21.05.2014 would go to show that it is only an inadvertent mistake that occurred while publishing the News item and there is no intention, much less, ill intention on the part of the petitioners to cause any harm or disrepute or defame the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel would further submit that assuming without conceding, mere wrong mentioning of votes, under any stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as defamatory and therefore Section 501 of IPC is also not attracted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the complaint itself is lacking in bona fides and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners, more particularly, after publication of News on dated 21.05.2014 pointing out the mistake committed in publishing the News item dated 17.05.2014 is not warranted and seeks to quash the same.

¶40

¶41

The learned party-in-person on the other hand submits that the publication of News item by mentioning the number of votes less than what were actually secured by him amounts to defamation, intended to effect his reputation and therefore the learned Magistrate is justified in proceeding with the matter. He also submits that the name of the political party i.e., ‘Bahujana Samaj Party’ was wrongly mentioned as ‘Bahujana Samaj Vadi Party’ though the petitioners are well aware of the party’s name, with a mala fide intention. He submits that in any event, it is a case where the Trial Court should be allowed to proceed with the Trial, instead of interfering with the same, as pleaded by the petitioners. Making the said submissions, the learned party-in-person seeks dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

¶42

Before dealing with the rival contentions, it may be appropriate to

¶43

refer to the relevant provisions of Law, extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶44

Sec.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 expected, to defame that person.

¶45

Explanation:

¶46

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.

¶47

Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

¶48

Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically,

¶49

may amount to defamation.

¶50

¶51

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.

¶52

Sec.501.Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory - Whoever

¶53

prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶54

From a reading of the above provisions of Law, it is clear that there should be intention, knowledge or reasonable belief that the imputation made or published would harm the reputation of the person concerned.

¶55

In the present case, the 2^nd respondent lodged the complaint invoking the said provisions of Law on the premise that the votes secured by him were wrongly mentioned in the News item and the name of the political party was wrongly published, thereby his reputation was damaged. It is not in dispute that the 2^nd respondent lost in the Election. Be that as it may. As noted supra, to attract the provisions of the above sections, there must be an intention to harm the reputation of a person or knowledge or good reason to believe that printing/publishing of any matter is of defamatory in nature. Mere wrong mention of votes secured by the candidate or party’s name cannot be said to or intend to harm the reputation of any person.

¶56

No doubt, the votes secured by the 2^nd respondent were not correctly mentioned in the News item on 17.05.2014, but within 4 days, another

¶57

News item was published on 21.05.2014 referring to the mistake committed

¶58

¶59

on the earlier occasion. In such an event, it cannot be construed that only with a view to cause harm to the reputation of the 2^nd respondent, the votes secured by him were wrongly mentioned. Even by virtue of wrong mentioning the name of the political party, the reputation of the 2^nd respondent will not, in any way, be effected. It is not a case where some false News was published against the 2^nd respondent, by virtue of which, damage to his reputation occurred, but a case of wrong committed in publishing the votes secured by him.

¶60

In the aforementioned circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, ingredients of Sections 499 & 501 of IPC are not attracted to the facts of the case and continuation of Criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Law. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the 2^nd respondent are rejected.

¶61

¶62

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 are quashed. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶63

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 13.02.2023 IS

¶64

Note: L.R copy be marked

¶65

¶66

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶67

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.990 of 2019

¶68

Date: 13.02.2023

¶69

¶70

Note: L.R copy be marked

G.Sanghi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sanghi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manukonda Narasimha Sambi Reddy, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

B.Appa Rao Vs P.Venkata Ramireddy

Sikharam Surendra Chary Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Srikanth Gowd Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. International Institute of Hotel Vs Dr Sri Rajat Bhargava, IAS

sri Yerra Narsu Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh