Allowed

Rahul Shivashankar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2024CRLP/13245/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashing defamation proceedings instituted against a media editor who telecasted news in good faith. The court held the trial magistrate violated procedural mandates by issuing summons without recording reasons or applying mind to exceptions under IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 141 of 2018 on file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tadipatri are quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

Rahul Shivashankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13245 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rahul Shivashankar, S/o. Sudhir Shivashankar, Aged^about43 years. Editor in Chief - Times Now, At sector 16A, Film City, Noida, Benett Coleman and company Limited,

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

J.C.Diwakar Reddy, S/o. Late J.C.Nagi Reddy, Aged^about72 years. Hindu, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Representing Anantapuramu Constituency, Residing at Sanjeeva Nagar, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District.

¶12

...Respondents/Defacto-Complainant

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Tadipatri

¶14

Ananthapur District including the order dated 04.05.2018, taking cognizance of the complaint and quash the same.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 141 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Tadipatri, Ananthapur District, including appearance of the petitioner pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

APHC010930392018

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13245/2018

¶25

Between;

¶26

Rahu! Shivashankar

¶27

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶28

AND

¶29

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) and Others

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused;

¶31

1.THOOM SRiNIVAS

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶33

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶34

The Court made the following;

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of^Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to .quash the^{proceedingsin} C.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate^of First Class, Tadipatri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code (for short^{“I.P.C.”)-} 2) Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 was elected as M.L.A.^{fromTadipatri} Assembly constituency continuously for 6 times and^alsoservedas Cabinet Minister in the. integrated State of Andhra^{Pradeshforgood} t length of time. He filed a complaint under Section^{155(2)readwith} * > 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner-accused for the offence' punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C. before,the Judicial of First Class, Tadipatri, alleging that on 16.06.2017 Magistrate Indigo Airline’s Staff at Visakhapatnam'Airport refused boarding pass to the complainant against the norms and the rules.^Though the behaviour of the Indigo Airline’s Staff was exasperating^ofbitter annoyance and provocative, the complainant controlled his emotions and maintained restraint and behaved in a^{verydignified} manner without indulging in any act of violence and^{assault.While} Now so the petitioner-accused as Editor in Chief of Times Television channel telecasted a programme with the^{caption“Rowdy} 16.06.2017 and 17.06.2017. The accused himself Reddy” on anchored the programme and called the complainant as^“Rowdy' M.P. several times and made caustic Reddy” and also goon aspersions against the complainant. As the said defamatory statements made by the accused in the TV channel against^the

¶39

¶40

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶41

complainant impaired the reputation of the complainant, he filed the present criminal complaint against the petitioner-accused. 3) On 26.11.2020 when the matter came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶42

“In the meantime, the Court below is directed not to insist upon the presence of the petitioner, unless it is required for the proceedings of the case.”

¶43

During, hearing, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy learned counsel appearing fpr Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner_accused contended that the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioner basing on the sworn statement of the complainant and other material, which do.'not make out any case for defamation. In case the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, the Magistrate can postpone the issue of process against the accused or direct to conduct investigation by a police officer as stipulated in Section 202 of Cr.P.C,, but in the present case, instead of following the said procedure, the Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused and issued summons. The complainant deliberately suppressed the material before the trial Court and misled the trial Court at the time of taking cognizance against the accused and no .reasons were assigned by the trial Court while taking cognizance, Further, the petitioner telecasted the alleged news item in the good faith only. Hence, there is no defamation, eVen if any imputation IS there, it would fall under exception 9 to Section 499 of I.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he relied on the

¶44

¶45

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶46

judgments of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, which" will be referred to at appropriate stage. •

¶47

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie would constitute offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C.^asthe petitioner accused made defamatory statements against the complainant. Therefore, the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri^{doesnotwarrant} any interference by this Court and requested to dismiss the present criminal petition.

¶48

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material^{availableon’-} record, the point that arises for consideration is as follow,s:

¶49

''“Whether the proceedings against the petitibner in C.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate^of First Class, Tadipatri are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶50

POINT:

¶51

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8) Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give^effectto •i any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It^is'anobvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make^an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can

¶52

¶53

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶54

lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the.' Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power IS external in nature to meet the ends of justice.

¶55

-.9) Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows;

¶56

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for.only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, 'however. necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis^of the case, before the trial to find out whether,the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the

¶57

¶58

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶59

offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material^to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High^Courtasheld by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna^Kumar'” 11) In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^ the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under^Section482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts^inexerciseof their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence^ormakteouta case against the accused. .

¶60

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate^within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶61

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or cornplaint^andthe evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against^theaccused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a I cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable^offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer wiithout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of^theCode. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint*^are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent

¶62

^ 1992 Supp(l)SCC 335

¶63

1 AIR 1990 SC 494

¶64

¶65

VS.J Crlp_13245_2018

¶66

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding againsfthe accused.

¶67

(6) Where there is an express legal bar ehgrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under^which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision^{intheCodeorthe} concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶68

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously^{institutedwithan} ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused^andwithaview to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶69

Keeping in view the above principles, would like^toexamine the case on'hand.

¶70

‘13) In the present 'case, the complainant filed the criminal complaint against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 and 501 of I.P.C. 14) Section 500 of I.P.C. deals with “punishment for^{defamation”} and Section 501 of I.P.C. deals with “printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory”. The word “defamation” is defined in Section 499 of I.P.C., which is as follows: “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, pr knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will'harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter e)(cepted, to defame that person.

¶71

There are ‘10’ exceptions to Section 499 of I.P.C. Exceptions 9 and 10 are relevant to decide the issue involved in the present case.

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

“Ninth Exception:Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests. It is not defamation to make an imputation, on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

¶76

Tenth Exception:- Caution intended for good of person^to whom conveyed or for public good.

¶77

It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith,^to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed,^orof ' some person in whom that person is interested, or for the, public good.”

¶78

Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 28, defines 'defamatory statement' as under;

¶79

“A defamatory statement is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking^membersofthe society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling trade or business.”

¶80

The main contention of the petitioner is that he is a media person, and it is his duty to inform the public about the incidents', took place in various places and as a part of it, he telecasted the news item with regard to the incident which took place on 16.06.2017 at Visakhapatnam Airport. He further contended that the same was telecasted for the public good and not with a view to humiliate the complainant. The said news report was telecasted with

¶81

9 VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶82

a bonafide, intention to bring out the relevant facts about the incident.

¶83

On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the petitioner» accused did not use any derogatory language in any^manner.As per the material on record, the alleged news channel approached the complainant and also telecasted his response on the allegations raised by the Airline’s people. The alleged incident was covered by almost all news channels, including local and national platforms.

¶84

The main allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he made defamatory statement against the complainant. 20) The essential nature of a defamatory statement is that it is one that causes an adverse effect on a person's reputation i.e., how it is viewed by others. A statement made should have a tendency to lower or adversely affect a person's reputation or if it exposes a person to "hatred or ridicule', or causes Wm to be 'shunned or avoided', or injures his reputation in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity. To be defamatory, a statement should have the tendency to affect a person's reputation; it need not actually lower it.

¶85

The petitioner admitted that he telecasted the news item about the incident happened at Visakhapatnam Airport, and the same was telecasted in good faith only. No defamatory^statement was made by’the petitioner-accused. The petitioner contended that he telecasted the news item to bring out the facts of the incident. •.Therefore, it can be said that he telecasted the news item in good faith and for the public good. Therefore, it would fall under » exceptions 9 and 10 of Section 499 of I.P.C.

¶86

¶87

¶88

vs,j ’Crlp_13245 2018

¶89

Further as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C. if the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, the Magistrate can postpone the issue of process against the accused or direct the police officer to conduct investigation. In the present case, as per the cause title in the complaint filed by the complainant, the petitioner-accused is Editor in Chief-cum-Anchor, Times Global Broadcasting Company Limited, St situated at Kamala Hills, Trade House, 1 Floor, Senapathi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, but. learned Magistrate without' following the procedure laid down in Section 202 Cr.R.C., passed the following order on 04.05.2018.

¶90

Dt.04.05.2018:

¶91

Complainant called absent, petition filed and allowed. One D.Reddappa Reddy sworn statement recorded as PW2, Complaint side reported no further evidence for 'the present. Heard the complainant counsel perused the record. On perusal the Court found that a prima facie case made out U/s 500 and 501 IRC. Hence c^e is taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 500 and 501 IPC against accused. Issue summons to accused on payment of process by 31.07.201*8.’’

¶92

It IS evident from the above said order, the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. while passing the said order and did not assign reasons for taking the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 500 and 501 of I.P.C., but issued summons.

VS,J

Crlp_13245_2018

In “Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemand Madhukar Nimbalkar and another^” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held as follows:

¶97

“The steps' taken by the Magistrate Under Section 190(1)(a) Code of Criminal Procedure followed by Section²⁰⁴ Code of Criminal Procedure should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along^withthe statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage.^TheCode of Crifninal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need^tobestated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is pot^toactasapost office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course.^Theremust be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint^constitutean offence and when considered along with the statements^recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation Under^Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused Under Section 204 Code of Criminal'Procedure, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure^ofmindon the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the

^ (2017) 3 see 528

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 Code of^Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 Code of^Criminal Procedure is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To^becalledto appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious^matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”

¶102

The law laid down in the said case is applicable^tothefactsof the present case.

¶103

In “Peps/ Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate"^’’^the Apex Court held that summoning of an accused in a criminal^cases is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Apex Court further held as follows:

¶104

“The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the^natureof allegations made in'the complaint and the evidence^bothoraland documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient^for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator) at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before sumrnoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise^theevidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to^find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then^examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

" (1998) 5 see 749

»•

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

1. In "Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH /s.^Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya ^ ” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, thaApex Court held as follows; “In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage

¶110

the Magistrate progeeds to issue process, he has to^form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other I

¶111

material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists as distinguished from 'sufficient ground for conviction', which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing^inthelaw which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499, Indian^PenalCode is attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is 'excepted' cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision.”

¶112

In "Kishore Balkrishna Nand Vs. State of Maharashtra 6« ( relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court ■'held that if any statement is made in ‘good faith’,^thesamewould not constitute the offence of defamation as .defined under Section 499 of I.P.C.

¶113

By applying the law laid down in the above judgments,^asthe petitioner telecasted the news item in good faith,^thesamewould not constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of I.P.C. 30) Further, it appears from the record, respondent^No.2hasfiled pen drive containing the programme telecasted along with the complaint. But, the learned Magistrate has not recorded any

¶114

^ (2024) 2 see 86 (2023) 8 see 358

¶115

¶116

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

¶117

observation in the order dated 04.05.2018 as to whether he examined the telecasted programme before coming to such conclusion. Further, learned Magistrate has not called^forC.D.from Airport authorities to verify the truth or otherwise^{inthecontentsof} the complaint. 31) It is evident from the record that a letter dated 29.11.2017 from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was received by the channel in which petitioner-accused was working, through the News Broadcasting Standards Authority, enclosing a complaint dated 26.07.2017 raised by the complainant with the Speaker, Lok Sabha, alleging defamatory and derogatory remarks made against him in TV channels. As a member of the News Broadcasters Association, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has forwarded the above complaint to the National Broadcasting Standards Authority for redressal. As per the guidelines and redressal mechanism of National Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Channel responded vide reply dated 15.T2.2017. At its meeting’, held on 20.01.2018, the National Broadcasting Standards Authority did not find any violation by the Channel and stated^thatasamedia platform, it was the duty of the media to highlight such acts of public servants and the same was conveyed to Ministry of Information^and Broadcasting. As per the guidelines issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the channels are obliged to preserve and maintain on-air content up to a period of 90 days after the broadcast. Again on 06.03.2018, another letter was^receivedfrom Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for the same complaint, to which the petitioner’s channel responded on 15.03.2018 stating that footage is not available with the broadcaster as the^same is more

¶118

¶119

VS,J Crlp_13245_,2018

¶120

than 6 months old. So, it can be said that after availing all remedies, the complainant filed the present complaint with same to harass the petitioner. Taking into allegations with a view of events, this Court is of the consideration of the above sequence of Criminal Court shall not be used as a opinion that the process Mohmood ill Rehman Vs. Khazir of harassment. In weapon -Mohammad Tunda^'r relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held as follows

¶121

The steps taksn bv the Magistmte Under Section 1900

¶122

(af of Code of Criminal Procedure followed by Section 204_of Code of r.riniinal Procedure should reflect that the Magistrate has thR facts and the statements and he is

¶123

applied his mind to <;atisfied that there is around for proceeding further^inthematter bv asking the person against whom the violation of law is allecje^ to appear beforR the court. The satisfaction on the^groundfor that the facts alleged in the complaint

¶124

proceeding would mean would constitute an offence^{andwhenconsideredalongwiththe} facie, make the accused

¶125

Statements recorded, would, prima_ answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed Under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated

¶126

complaint is words, the Magistrate is not to act as a

¶127

only briefly. In other of Rach and every complaint filed

¶128

office in taking coqnizance matter of course. There must

¶129

hRfore him and issue process as a hR sufficient indication in the order passed by the^{Magistratethat} thR complaint constitute an

¶130

hR is satisfied that the allegations in considered along with the statements recorded

¶131

offence and when and the result of inouirv or report of investigation^UnderSection

^ (2015) 12 see 420

VS,J Crlp_13245_2018

202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if any, the accused IS answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused Under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 of Code of-Criminal Procedure is bound to inyoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”

¶136

Media is one of the primary mediums of information available to the public. Indeed, what the media shares plays a big role in shaping attitudes and changing public opinion in different^matters. So, as a medium, the different faces of rfiedia do play a majon. influential role in society. Media aims to supply relevant, genuine, and fair information to the citizens without any discrepancies, misinformation, or manipulation. Through the media, the citizens would get details on what is happening in the world^aroundthem. The role of media in society is a major point of concern and focus. The power and role of media depend heavily on who gives them attention, i.e., the public. Media performs guardians’ responsibility and works as a mouthpiece for the public^andtheir thoughts. In the present case, as discussed above, prima facie the petitioner as a media person telecasted the news items with regard to the incident which took place on 16.06.2017 at Visakhapatnam Airport in good faith, which would fall under exceptions^9and10of-

¶137

¶138

VSJ Crip_13245_2013

¶139

Section 499 of I.P.C. Further, the Magistrate has not^followedthe procedure laid down in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. while issuing summons to the petitioner - accused and did not assign^reasonsin the order dated 04.05.2018 for taking cognizance against the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under^Section500 and 501 of IrP.C. Therefore, the criminal petition^deserves to be allowed. '

¶140

Accordingly, the' criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri. 34) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall^alsostand closed.

¶141

SD/-G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,