Allowed

M/S.Vil Media Pvt.Ltd., Banjara Hills and 4 Othrs., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and and Anr.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022CRLP/6782/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR lodged against media personnel for sedition, cheating, and forceful trespass. The Court held that allegations were bald and lacked specific details to constitute a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the FIR in Cr.No. 87 of 2013 against the petitioners were quashed.

M/S.Vil Media Pvt.Ltd., Banjara Hills and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6782 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/S.Vi1 Media Pvt.Ltd., Plot No. 13/ A/B/C, Road No. 12, MLA's Extcnsion Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 34. By its CEO and The Editor in Chief, Mr.Ravi Ankam, S/o.Raja Ram, Hyderabad.

¶8

Mr.Ravi Ankam, S/o. Raja Ram, CEO and The Editor in Chief Office of V-6 News, Plot No. 13/A/B/C, Road No. 12, MLA's Extension Colony,^Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 34.

¶9

M.Someshwar, S/o. Mekala Chinna Papaiah, Occ: Advertisement Manager, V-6 Charrnel, Plot No. 13/ A/B/C, Road No. 12, MLA's Extension Colony, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 34.

¶10

Sri Kranthi Kiran, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Occ: Inpur Editor, V-6 Channel, Plot No. 73/ A/B/C, Road No. 12, MLA's Extension Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 34.

¶11

P.Yoganandarn, S/ o. Malsoor, Crime Reporter, V-6 Channel, Plot No. 13/A/B/C, Road No. 12, MLA's Extension Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 34.

¶12

...PETITIONEIVACCUSED No.1 to 5

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF AP., REP. PP AND AND ANR.,, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through PS., Banjara Hills, Hydcrabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Mr.P.Ramesh Babu, S/o. P.Venkataramana, Managing Director & CEO, M/s. AP Media & Broadcasting Company PvLLtd., Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/DEFACT COMPLAINANTS

¶18

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 toto quash the proceedings in Crime No. 87 of 2013 on the file of the Banjara Police, PS., Hyderabad District against the petitioners

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLPMP. NO: 19073 OF 201.61

¶20

Petition undor Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying drat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be

¶21

pleased to vacato the interim stay granted in Crl.P.No.6782/20L3 on thc file of the High Court of Judicature at Hyclerabad

¶22

I.A. NO: 2 OF 20]3(CRLPMP-NO:51tX QF 2QQ)

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the I{igh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioners in Clrime No.87 of 2013 on the file of the Banjara Police, PS., Hyderabad District.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Chandra Shaker, Advoc;rte for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor (TG/ AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for tho Respondent No.2.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTIIOSH REDDY

¶27

CRL.P.No.6782 0F 2013

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This criminal petition is fited under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A- l to A-5 in pursuance of the F.l.R in Cr.No.87 ol 2013 of Banjara Hilts Police Station, Hyderabad, registered lor the offences punishable under Sections 124- A, | 43, I 47, 323, 384, 420, 426, 506 and 1 20-B read with Section 34 IPC.

¶30

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners and leamed Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor for the first respondent/State. None represented the second respondent. Perused the record.

¶31

The second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Ill-Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally} against A-l to A-9^{alleging offences punishableunderSections} 124-A., 143, 147,323,384,^{420, 426, 506 and 120-8read with} Section 34^{IPC and the samewas forwarded by the learned} Magistrate to^{the police underSection 156(3) Cr'P'C''for} investigation^{and report'Thereafter'the Police'BanjaraHills} registered^{a case in Cr.No'87 of 2013 againstA-1 to A-9'}

¶32

¶33

The allegations in the complaint, in briel are that^the complainant was the CEO of M/s A.P. Media & Broadcasting Cornpany Private Limited and he launched a pro-iect called 'Digitization of Hyderabad City' on 04.07.2012 and in pursuance of the sarne, entered into franchisee agreements with competent technical people for establishment ol resource centres, which provides cedain data processing hardware with internet connectivity and also technically competent manpower. One Mr.Someshwar/A-3, who happens to the Marketing Head o1' V6 News Channel, approached the complainant for advertisements and he informed Mr.Someshrvar that he will consider the proposal in due course of time. The third petitioner/ A-3 made a futile attempt to drag money from the complainant and A-3 threatened him that V6 Channel is planning to defame the complainant. The complainant company has conducted inspection of the offices of resource centres and it came to know that the centres belonging to V6 Channel agents are not meeting their standards as per the agreement. As there was violation of the terms and conditions, the complainant company had decided to terminate the services of resources centres. The owners of the terminated

¶34

¶35

resources centres in collusion with V6 Channel have started delaming the complainant and the projects and even started telecasting negative stories. On 31.10.2012, the staff of V6 Channel along with other unsocial elements had forcefully trespassed into the premises of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences. It is further atleged that V6 Channel formed into a group of their agents, editors, reporters, news readers against the complainant and criminally conspired to collapse the business and bring down the reputation ol the complainant.

¶36

The leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose commission of any of the offences alleged; that the complaint is not supported by any affidavit as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRMTSAVA v. UNION OF INDIAT and BABU VENKATESH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2; that the proceedings of the leamed Magistrate clearly establishes that the leamed Magistrate tailed to apply his judicial n.rind as per the law laid down the

¶37

,(2ols) 6 scc 287

¶38

, (2022 SCC ONLTNE SC 200)

¶39

¶40

I{on'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVATSAVA's case; that

¶41

the secon<l lespondent only with an inter-rtion to harass the petitioners filed the complaint with all false allegations and none of the ingredients of the offences alleged are nrade out; and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and to secur€ the ends of^justice, the complaint is liable to be quashed

¶42

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the contentions of learned counsel lor the petitioners, contends that there are allegations in the complaint and thc same attract the ingredients of the offences alleged and as such the investigating agency may be permitted to proceed with the investigation to bring the case to its logical conclusion. She prays to dismiss the petition.

¶43

In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHA,IAN LALr, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the lollowing categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such

¶44

I 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

¶45

¶46

power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the

¶47

court or otherwise to secure the ends oljustice, as under:

¶48

(a) where the attegations made in the First lnformation Report or the comptaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶49

(b) where the atlegations in the First lnformation Report and other materiats, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disctose a cognizabte offence, justifying an investigation by potice 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;

¶50

(c) where the uncontroverted attegations made in the FIR or^'comptaint and the evidence coltected in support of the same do not disctose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶51

(d) where the altegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute^onty a^non- cognizabte offence, no investigation^{is permitted} by a^potice officer without^{an order of a} Magistrate as contemptated^{under Section155(2)} of the Code;

¶52

(e) where the atteqations made in^{the FIR or} comptaint are so absurd^{andinherenttY}

¶53

¶54

improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶55

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted 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 in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶56

(g) where a criminat proceeding is manifestty attended with mata fide and/or where the proceeding is maticiousty instituted with an utterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and persona[ grudge".

¶57

A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the second

¶58

respondent, as CEO of IWs A.P. Media & Broadcasting Company Private Limited, had launched a project called^{.Digitization} of Hyderabad City' and, accordingly, entered into franchisee agreements with competent technical people for establishment of resource centres. Petitioner/A-3 is alleged to have approached the complainant for advertisements in the project in their channel.

¶59

¶60

When the complainant refused, the accused are alleged to have conspired with criminal intention to defame the complainant. Accused are alleged to have sent their people to get appointed in the complainant's company to serve as their agents for development of project with survey in Hyderabad. On coming to know of the same, the second respondent company negotiated the action for violation of conditions of agreement. It is alleged that during the activities and access of the said agents, the accused^have entered into the premises of the^{complainant, videographedthe} office premises forcibly by^{threateningthe staff and the} complainant^{withdire consequences' assaulted the complainant and} telecasted^{the same in their channelto defamethe projectand to} cause wrongful^{loss to the complainant'}

¶61

g. The entire^{allegations in the complaintdo not specifically} attract^{any of the oftbnces allegedand only baldallegationsare} ieve,ed^{withouttherebeing any specificalegations as to the time,} occulrence^{of any of the instancesand most of the allegations} speak^{about digitizationof HyderabadCity beinglaunchedby the}

¶62

second^resPondent'

¶63

¶64

The learned counsel for^{the petitionerssubmits thatthe} learned Magistrate^{without application of mind had mechanically} forrvarded the complaint filed by^{the second respondent without} follorving the law laid down by the Hon'ble^{Apex Court in} PRIYANKA SRMTSAVA's case ( I supra), wherein the Hon'ble ,\pex Court at paragraphs 30 and 3l held as under:

¶65

"ln our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. apptications are to be supported by an affidavit duty sworn by the appticant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be we[[ adv.ised to verify the truth and atso can verify the veracity of the aitegations. This affidavit can make the appticant more responsibte. We are competted to say so as such kind of apptications are being fited in a routine manner without taking any responsibitity whatsoever onty to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and atarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be chattenged under the framework of said Act or under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a cfimina I aor rt z< if cna^t..^.J. . :_ as if somebody is determined to sett{e ,n" ,.'i.lrlo"t

¶66

We have already ind t:::lnere has ro be prior apprications under -t:: ,ection 154(1) and 154(3)

¶67

¶68

whi(e fiting a petition un aspects shourd be .,"..,r1L:,":::1,' :;j'l#::,::; and necessary documents The warrant -r r,r,r,. oi.ntJn:tJ::,o;1:1 under Section 156(3) be : so that the ourron r*n'r"J:T:,:J..LT:il,r: conscious and atso ende; to see that no fatse affidavit is made. It is b(t round to be rarse, ,";,;;'fl:"r,:1::::":::ff,; accordance with taw. This invoke the aurhority "r^{rr";:r:ril;ff} ,# 'r s6(3).

¶69

The above decision was followed in BABU VENKATESH,s case (2 supra).

¶70

I l. However, in the instant case, the complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.p.C and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.87 of 2013 on 29.01.2013 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVATSAVA's case (l supra) is dated 19.03.2015. It appears that the leamed Magistrate in a mechanical manner referred the complaint to the police for investigation. He ought to have verified the veracity of the allegations in the complaint before referring the same to the police.

¶71

¶72

12.^{Be that as it may'withoutthere beingany allegationsprima} .facie^{attracting, any of the offences alleged' the leamed Magistrate} refened^{the complaint filed by the second respondent to police} and the^{samewas registeredas Cr'No'87of 2013for the offences} punishable^{under Sections124-A'143' 147 ' 323' 384' 420' 426'} 506 and^{120-Bread with Section 34 IPC'}

¶73

i3. A^{careful perusal of the allegationsin the complaintdoes not} reveal that any^{acts ol the accusedhad tesultedin offence} punishable under Section^{124-A IPC.Section 124-A penalizes any} spoken or written words or^signs or^{visible representationsetc',} which have the effect of bringing or which attempt to bring^into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Govemment established by law. There is no single allegation to show that any attempt was made by the petitioners to excite disaffection towards the Govemment.

¶74

l'he essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable

, )

security; and the (iii) mens rea ol the accused at the time of making the inducement.

¶79

In the instant case, none of the allegations show that the accused has induced the complainant to deliver a property or to do a thing. Primafacie, there are no allegations to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. Similarly, I do not find any specific allegations attracting any ofthe other olfences stated above.

¶80

[n view of the above, it appears that only bald allegations are made in the complaint without any specific instance of the alteged incident regarding time or occurrence and no overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Even if the allegations contained in FlR/complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. Moreover, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any of the cognizable offences and permitting the investigation would amount to abuse of^processof law.^Therefore, it is considered a fit case to invoke^{the inherent powers of this court} under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,^{and quash the proceedings againstthe} petitioner/A-l to A-5.

¶81

¶82

¶83

The criminal petition is, accordingly. allorved. The proceedings against the petitioners/A- l to A_5 in pursuance of the F.l.R in Cr.No.87 of 2013 of Banjara Hills police Starion,

¶84

Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶85