Telangana High Court
Mootha Gopala Krishna vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11303 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.669 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.03.2022 respondent No.2 received information from T.Gangadhar and Basa Venkatesh regarding publication of false news clipping about him in Andhra Prabha daily newspaper in Nizamabad and Kamareddy editions alleging that the authorities registered a case against respondent No.2 for land grabbing in Sy.No.180 situated at Nizamabad bypass of Khanapur outskirts. It is stated that respondent No.2 along with his family members filed a suit for partition vide O.S.No.24 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judge, Nizamabad. In the said suit, they filed I.A.No.550 of 2021, wherein, the Court below passed Status-quo orders in 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 respect of suit schedule properties and upon violation of the said orders, a contempt petition was filed. As such, the people impacted by he said orders were influenced to publish the false news article about respondent No.2. Further, a private complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and upon cognizance, the same is numbered as C.C.No.669 of 2022, wherein, summons were issued to the petitioner. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being Chairman of Andhra Prabha Newspaper group, is no way concerned with the publication of false news article in the Andhra Prabha Newspaper. He further submitted that ingredients in the complaint do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vemuri Radha Krishna Vs. the State of Telangana and others 1, judgment of Andhra Pradesh 1 Crl.P.No.10257 of 2021 dated 28.03.2022 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 High Court in Ravi Prakash Vs. J.C.Diwakar Reddy and others 2 and judgment of the Apex Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 3 and prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In case of Vemuri Radha Krishna (1 Supra), at paragraph No.12 it is held as under:
"12. In view of the above said discussion and also the principle laid down in the above judgments, there is no allegation against the petitioner
- accused No. 6 that he has knowledge ofthe above said News ARticle published in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper and that the other accused have taken the consent of the petitioner herein before publishing the said news item. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the proceedings in C.C.No.1020 of 2012 against the petitioner herein - accused No.6 cannot be continued and the same are liable to be quashed."
7. In case of Ravi Prakash (2 Supra) at paragraph No.8 it is held as under:
"8. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, there is no allegation that the accused had any participation in selection of the alleged defamatory news item in T.V. 9 News Channel. In the absence of any allegations of mens rea and in the absence of any factual participation in telecasing the impugned news item, the accused cannot be said to have prima facie committed offence of defamation on the sole ground that he is Chief Executive Officer of T.V. 9 news channel. Generally, the criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability on the part of the employer, unless there is any special and specific provision in any statute touching criminal 2 Crl.P.No.5429 of 2006 dated 26.02.2010 3 Manu/SC/0016/2015 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 liability. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed."
8. The Apex Court in case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (3 Supra), at paragraph No.39, it is observed that when the company is the offendor, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect.
9. Admittedly, this petitioner is the Chairma of Andhra Prabha News Paper Group, Hyderabad and Nizamabad. There is no averment in the complaint that this petitioner is also having knowledge about the said false news item and though he is mentioned as accused, the allegation is mainly against accused No.3.
10. In view of the judgments in Vemuri Radha Krishna (1 Supra), Ravi Prakash (2 Supra) and Sunil Bharti Mittal (3 Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner being Chairman cannot be made liable for the alleged offences, as such, proceedings levelled against him are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.669 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.03.2024 gms 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D.ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11303 of 2022 Date: 27 .03.2024 gms