CRLP/15896/2014 of DONTHU RAMESH, HYD AND 5 OTHRS Vs P.P., HYD AND ANO on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

1 This criminal [petition under ][Section ][482 ][Cr'P'C' ][is ][filed ][seeking to]quash the [pioceedings against ][the ][petitioners herein ][who ][are ][accused ][Nos.l]to6inc.c.5T4gof2022onthefileoftheCourtofthelllAdditional]uniorCivil Judge-cum-III [Additional Judicial ][Magistrate ][of ][I ][Class' ][Warangal']registeredfortheoffencespunishableunderSections46gof500oflPC.

2 The facts in [brief ][are ][that the ][second ][respondent herein filed a private]complaintunderSection200Cr.P.Cagainstthepetitionersfortheoffencespunishable under Sections [500, ][384, ][lB2, ][469 ][and 420 ][IPC' ][The ][allegations]made in the complaint [are ][that the ][complainant is one ][of the ][sons ][of ][one]late Gande sammaiah. [The grandfather ][of ][the ][second respondent ][acquired]|otofpropertiesfromoutoftheirbusinessesandagriculturallands'Bethatas it may, on [01.112013 ][at ][about 1'30 p'm, ][TV9 ][Telugu ][news ][channel]telecast a [programme ][with ][a ][caption ]["Gupta Nidhi" ][with ][visual]representationsandfalseimputationsandwiththefollowinqheadlines:l/How utas it possibte for [So;mmotiah ][to ][ocquire ][this ][much ][treasute? ][2)]Whaf is the real truth [behind ][this ][treasure? ][3) ][Was ][it ][possible to]crcquire this much [tred,.su"e ][in ][their ][liJe time ][o.f ][ang ][rich person? ][4)]How Samrnai'Lh [cdLn ][acc:umulate ][thls ][much ][tredsure ][that ][can ][be]

spent Ior generd.tions? S) Was there any assured. hand oJ thieuesbehind the trea.sure? 6) police confirmed the existence oJ hidd.entreo.sure Z) Was the trea.sltre discovered. or brought Jrom the thievcs?a) ft m@g be possible to acquire one kg or tuo Jrom mortgage moneulending, but hout it 4O kgs gold and, 7OO kgs siluer uds acquired.?and 9/ Is it an ancestral propertg or crime treasure?3 The further averments of the compraint are that the grandfather ofthe second respondent did not indurge any iregar businesses and he did nothave any rinks with thieves or dacoits and he did not receive any storenproperty from any body and no case was booked against them by the police.But the T v g channer has terecast the above programme without therebeing any truth in it, onry to cause harm to the reputation of rate sammaiahand his family members. The comprainant got issued a notice to theaccused channer requrring them to revear the source oF information aboutthe alleged Gupta Nidhi, but they, instead of revealing the informationrequired, gave a reply with false pleas and allegations. The accused T.V.9channel has telecast such a false programme only to blackmail thecomplainant and his family members and extort money from them. Thepetitioners being the officiars of T.Vg channer and the persons responsibrefor terecasting such farse and defamatory news / programme are riabre to bepunished under the above sections of law.

4 The trial Court, after recording the sworn statements of thecomplainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offences underSections 469 and 500 of IPC only and the complaint insofar as the offencesunder Sections 182, 384 and 420 of IPC is disrnissed. As stated supra,seeking to quash th€ said proceedings, the petition€rs filed the presentcriminal petition.

5 Sri T.Pranav Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners contendedthat no case is made out for taking cognizance of the alleged offenseagainst the petitioners. He further submitted that though the controversaaltelecast was dated 01.11.2013, with abnormal delay, the complaint was filedon 28.8.2014, therefore, the complaint is rnanifestly originated with malafide intention and the proceedings are maliciously prosecuted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view tospite them due to the extraneous reasons, The learned counsel for thepetitioners further submitted that the petitioners cannot in any event beheld to have committed an offerrce under Section 500 IPC because the mostessential ingredient of the said offence is mens rea, which is lacking in thepresent set of facts and circumstances. He further submitted that even ifthe company could be presurned to have comrnitted any offence, thepetitioner Nos.2 to 6 cannot in any way be implicated merely because theyare directors of the company and they are strangers to the complainant and they have nothing to do with the alleged allegations [levelled ][against ][them]and that a director cannot be [hauled ]up [unless ][and ][until ][the ][law ][expressly]provides for the same. He further submitted that for fastening the crimindlliability there is no [presumption ]that every director or [officer ][knows about]the teleca'st. The criminal liability can be [fastened ]only on [those ][who, at ][the]time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and [were]responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

6 The learned counsel for the [petitioner ]relied on the followingjudgments: 1) Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)1, U.P. PollutionControl Board Vs. Mohan Meakins Ltd.2, Chief [Education ]Offlcer [vs.]K.S.Palanichamyr and Kalanithi l\4aranvs. A.Rathinaraja and Gambhirsinh [R.]Dekare vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patels in support of his contentions.

7 On the other hand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.VizarathAli, submitted that this is not the state to [quash ]the [proceeding ]as thepetitioners have committed the offence or not will have to be decided onlyafter a full-fledged trial 8 Section 469 of IPC states that whoever commits forgery, intendingthat the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of t (2012) 5 scc 424'z [lzooo; ][: ][scc ][zrs]3 2otz (2) MWN (cr ) 3s4'z [lzooo; ][: ][scc ][zrs]3 2otz (2) MWN (cr ) 3s4o 2017 sCC OnLrne Mad 9723t (20t3) 3 scc ogzt (20t3) 3 scc ogz any [party, ]or knowing [that ][it ][is ][likely ][to ][be ][used ][for ][that ][purpose, shall ][be]punished with imprisonment of eitlrcr description [for ][a ][term ][which ][may]extend to three [years, ]and [shall also be liable ][to ][fine.]

9 Section 500 IPC states that [whoever defames ][another shall ][be]punished with simple imprisonment [for ]a [term ][which ][may ][extend ][to ][two]years, or with fine, or with both.

10 Since it is the contention of [the ][second respondent ][that ][the ][contents]mentioned in the [programme ]aired [by ][the ][petitioners ][are forged one ][and]that it is a animated one and [since ][due ][to the ][said ][programme ][the ][family]reputation of the second [respondent was ][tarnished ][in ][the ][society, ][I ][am ][of]the opinion that whether the acts [of ][the ][petitioners ][caused such ][a ][harm ][to]the second respondent or [not ][and ][whether ][the ][petitioners ][can ][be]prosecuted by fastening vicarious liability will have [to ][be ][decided only after ][a]full-fledged trial. It is [made ][clear ][that this ][Court ][has ][not ][made ][any]observations with [regard ][to ][the ][contents ][of the ][programme ][allegedly ][aired]by the [petitioners.]

11 Hence the [present ]criminal [petition ][is dismissed ][granting liberty to ][the]petitioners to file an appropriate [petition ]before [the trial Court, if they ][are ][so]advised. However, [the ][presence ][of the ][petitioners before ][the ][learned trial]

Court is dispensed with for each and every adjournmeng specifically directed to appear before the trial Court.

unless they are

L2Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shallalso stand dismissed SD/-MOHO. SANAULLAH ANSARIASSISTANT REGITRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION oICER

To,1. The lllAdditional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrateof First Class at Warangal.1. The lllAdditional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrateof First Class at Warangal.

2. The Station House Officer, Ivlatwada Police Station, Warangal.

3. One CC to Sri T.Pranav Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Prabhakar Peri, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [OPUC]6. Two CD Copies6. Two CD Copies 'Lra HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.15896 [of ][2014]

L :' L,..-rr(c-)Ir('ec,J1 + ilAt 2[2{C.},J.t ''-'i.):t' i- r ..-:.-.;_ [--]

DISMISSING THE [CRIMINAL ][PETITION.]

0M