The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash defamation proceedings. It held that prima facie material existed to prosecute the petitioners for falsely inflating seized property values during a telecast, precluding quashing at this stage.
The criminal petition was dismissed and miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.556 of 2012
September 27, 2012
Between:
M/s.ABC Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., represented by its CEO & Chief Editor, Mr.Ravi Prakash And others
And 1. The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2. D.S.Murthy, S/o.Late D.Rama Rao
… Petitioners … Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.556 of 2012
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been preferred by the petitioners-A2 to A7 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash proceedings in C.C. No.787 of 2011 (C.C) on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Whereas the petitioners herein are A2 to A7, the second respondent is the complainant in the C.C. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the C.C.
The case of the complainant is as follows. He joined in Group-I services of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in February, 1970. Considering his meritorious service in 1984 he was selected to Indian Administrative Service. He served the Government in various capacities with integrity and was awarded Uttama Seva Pathakam in 1989, Prasamsa Pathram in 2003 and Ugadi Puraskar as best Civil
Servant in 2004. He retired from THE service as Secretary to THE Government of Andhra Pradesh. His allegation is that on the ground that during his life as a public servant he did not do any favour to A1his brother-in-law, A1 bore grudge and filed a private complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Cases, Hyderabad (the Special Court) against him whereas as directed by the Special Court, the ACB officials had searched his house on 06.4.2011, but in that context, A2 to A7 who are related to Telugu News Channel i.e., TV-9 cooked up concocted stories and telecasted them in the channel repeatedly on 13.4.2011 and 14.4.2011. In fact no media reporter was present at the time of the search. Only to defame his character within the public view, the petitioners telecasted false stories for which they are liable for punishment under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-A2 to A7 has submitted that the petitioners had shown in the television the actual proceedings initiated and conducted by the ACB and there is no basis for the allegations made against the A2 to A7 and hence they cannot be prosecuted for the offence of defamation and accordingly the proceedings are to be quashed.
Learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the complainant has submitted that as per the record the ACB officials only seized cash of Rs.15,000/- and 980 gms of gold, whereas A2 to A7 had telecasted in the television as if the ACB officials seized cash of Rs.47,00,000/-, 6 Kgs of gold articles, 4 Kgs of silver articles and three suit cases of property documents which is totally false. He claims that the words spoken and the property shown in the visuals at the time of telecast and the imputations made thereby definitely harmed the reputation of the complainant in the public view. Further, as there is material to prosecute the accused accordingly they have to be prosecuted for the alleged offence by reason of which the proceedings in the C.C. cannot be quashed.
The point that is to be considered is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings or not.
What is important is that according to the complainant, the ACB officials conducted the search of his house and the seized cash of Rs.15,000/- and 980 gms of gold. There is absolutely no basis to uphold the version of A2 to A7, as said to be telecasted in the television, that the ACB officials seized cash of Rs.47,00,000/-, 6 Kgs of gold articles, 4 Kgs of silver articles and three suit cases of property documents. This is said to be contradictory even to the search list prepared by the ACB officials at the time of the search. The search took place on 06.4.2011, whereas the telecast was done on 13.4.2011 and 14.4.2011. It appears prima facie that the accused had falsely shown the seizure particulars. If that is true, it would definitely affect the reputation of the complainant in the minds of the viewers. However, these issues have to be gone into at the time of trial in the C.C. When there is prima facie material to prosecute the accused hence it is not proper to quash the proceedings at this stage.
The criminal petition, for the reasons mentioned above, is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ (G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
September 27, 2012 YS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are grounds to quash criminal proceedings for defamation based on alleged false telecasts regarding an anti-corruption search.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. ABC Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. and others
The State of A.P.
D.S. Murthy
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
