Allowed

Amal Jain Alias Amol Jain Alias Amal Kr Jain And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2018Cr.Rev./645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners, the Chief Editor and an employee of a news channel, following a compromise. The petitioners provided an undertaking to restrict future telecasts to facts, avoid sub-judice matters, and refrain from sensationalizing the complainant's reputation.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the impugned order rejecting the discharge application are set aside.

Amal Jain Alias Amol Jain Alias Amal Kr Jain And Anr. Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 645 of 2016

¶3

Amal Jain @ Amol Jain @ Amal Kr Jain

¶4

Ashish Jain … Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand 2. Vikash Kumar … Opposite Parties ---

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishi Palava, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate ---

¶8

Order No. 03 Dated 06^th August, 2018

¶9

Heard Mr. Rishi Palava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.

¶10

This application is directed against the order dated 05.03.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 145 of 2009 (G.R. No. 2842 of 2009), whereby and whereunder, the discharge application preferred by the petitioners had been rejected.

¶11

Petitioner No. 1 is the Chief Editor of ‘365 Din’ owned and managed by Heritage Televenture Pvt. Ltd. So far as the petitioner No. 2 I concerned he is also an employee of the news channel.

¶12

The allegation has been levelled in the F.I.R. that an interview of the C.M.D. of Narnolia Securities Ltd. was conducted by the petitioner No. 2 and thereafter it is said that petitioner No 1 had demanded Rs. 24 lakhs and on denial by CMD, Narnolia Securities was threatened. It is also alleged that when the amount was not given, the telecast of manipulated clippings was made. On the basis of aforesaid allegation Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 145 of 2009.

¶13

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 for which he has referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

¶14

Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that an undertaking has been given by the petitioners that they will telecast or print or communicate any form of media or word of mouth only such contents related to business activities or otherwise of informant. Learned counsel therefore

¶15

¶16

submits that he does not have any objection that if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed and set aside.

¶17

The counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 reveals the undertaking which has been given by the petitioners, which reads as under:-

¶18

“i) That the Petitioner Amal Kumar Jain, C.E.O. of news Channel 365 Din owned and managed by Heritage Televenture Pvt Ltd having its registered office at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner for short) undertakes that he shall telecast or print only such contents which conform to the code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 or any other provision of law.

¶19

ii) That the Petitioner undertakes to telecast or print or communicate in any form of media or work of mouth only such contents related to business activities or otherwise of informant (hereinafter be read to be representing – Narnolia Securities Ltd, its CMD Krishnanand Narnolia or his associate Companies or from employees of Narnolia Securities Ltd or from employees of associated Companies of Krishnanand Narnolia) only after the final verdict is given by the statutory authorities under law like SEBI, Arbitration panel of the Stock Exchanges, Courts of Law etc and shall not telecast any matter which is sub-judice in the Court of law or before any statutory authority and the Petitioner undertakes to telecast the response of the Informant without altering the meaning of the response thereof, every time along with the news item pertaining to the order.

¶20

iii) That the Petitioner undertakes not to do/ repeat anything directly/ indirectly with the intention to adversely affect the business and goodwill of Informant or to solicit benefits from the informant and also will not sensationalize any news item pertaining to the informant and shall restrict to factual version only ad use the views of national print/ television media in terms of frequency and content of. Whether the news content has been sensationalized or not, the news coverage given by the other top two print and electronic media in terms of frequency and content of such telecast/ print/ communication can be taken as reference. The Petitioner herein undertakes not to differentiate while telecasting/ printing/ communicating any news item including verdict given by the relevant competent authorities etc., between the informant party and similar business house.

¶21

¶22

iv) That this undertaking of Petitioner be treated as a condition for his release on bail or/ and dismissal or/ and acquittal of the above case in future.”

¶23

It appears that the terms and conditions of the compromise has been accepted by the opposite party No. 2 and therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the criminal proceeding as against the petitioners. It further appears that the dispute does not involve any public policy.

¶24

Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the impugned order dated 05.03.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 145 of 2009 (G.R. No. 2842 of 2009), whereby and whereunder, the discharge application preferred by the petitioners had been rejected, are set aside.

¶25

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶26

Amal Jain Alias Amol Jain Alias Amal Kr Jain And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Jain Alias Amol Jain Alias Amal Kr Jain And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Modi Vs State of Bihar Now Jharkhand

Pradeep Topno Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Japali Sao and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Dinesh Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jainendra Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vijay Lohar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.