Karnataka High Court

Mr Aroon Purie vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2023

                                 1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3869 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

1.    MR. AROON PURIE
      AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
      SON OF LATE SHRI V.V. PURIE,
      CHAIRMAN AND EDITOR IN CHIEF OF
      T V TODAY NETWORK LTD.,
      RESIDING AT NO.6, PALAM MARG,
      VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057.

2.    MR. RAJDEEP SARDESAI
      SON OF LATE SRI DILEEP SARDESAI,
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT N-52, PANCHSHEEL PARK,
      NEW DELHI-110017.

3.    MR. SHIV AROOR
      SON OF SRI. P.R. AROOR,
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT NO.1452,
      ATS VILLAGE, SECTOR 93A,
      NOIDA-201301.

      PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
      REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THEIR
      POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
      DR. PUNEET JAIN,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
      SON OF MR. R.S. JAIN
                                              ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER NO.1;
                               2


SRI. HRISHIKESH BARUAH, ADVOCATE ALONGWITH                SRI.   B.
PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2)

AND:
1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY
     HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
     MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560001.

2.   MR. B.R. PATIL
     SON OF SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA M PATIL,
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
     MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
     KARNATAKA STATE
     (ALAND CONSTITUENCY),
     RESIDING AT NO.17, FLAT NO.7,
     NANDINI ENCLAVE, RMV 2ND STAGE,
     BHOOPASANDRA NEW LAYOUT,
     BANGALORE-560094.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
CRIME BEARING NO.92/2016 IN HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,    PENDING   ON   THE   FILE   OF   VIII   ADDL.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A).


       THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 22.09.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                    3


                               ORDER

The petitioners who were arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3

and 4 have filed this petition challenging the registration of First

Information Report in Cr.No.92/2016 by the respondent No.1

for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468,

153A, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000,

pending consideration before the VIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.

2. The respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.92/2016 on

the basis of information in writing provided by the respondent

No.2 on 07.06.2016 alleging commission of cognizable

offences. The respondent No.2 claimed that he was a member

of the Legislative Assembly from Aland constituency,

Karnataka. He claimed that on 27.05.2016, he was invited by

the National General Secretary of Janathdal (S) to a hotel - Lalit

Ashok, Bengaluru for a cup of tea. He went there along with a

Delhi based friend - Mr. Vijay Pratapji. He claimed that he,

Mr. Vijay Pratapji, the General Secretary, Mr. Syed Mudeer

Agha and two party workers joined them at Lalit Ashok. He

claimed that he met his friend Mr. Srikant, a Senior Journalist

who had incidentally gone there. At about 07:00 p.m., all of

them went to room No.409 at Lalit Ashok hotel which was

allotted to Mr.Danish Ali. When they were in the room, two

persons went there to meet Mr.Danish Ali. The respondent No.2

claimed that he had a casual chat with all of them and

thereafter, he and others left the room. On 02.06.2016, at

about 4:30 p.m., the respondent No.2 allegedly received a call

from one of his friends, who informed that some discussions

were telecast on 'India Today' news channel. When the

respondent No.2 switched on the television, and tuned into the

channel, he was shocked to notice that under the guise of a

sting operation, nasty, reckless and frivolous allegations were

made against him by the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner

No.3. Subsequently, the petitioner No.2 repeated the same

programme on 'Times Now' news channel on the same evening.

Both the channels showed the visuals purporting to have been

recorded by a secret camera at hotel Lalit Ashok, where the

respondent No.2 was projected as a corrupt politician. The

programmes were telecast and re-telecast under the following

caption namely, "Seats for sale - 2 candidates and three MLA

stung" - Times Now. "The Rajya Sabha Bazaar" - India today.

3. The respondent No.2 claimed that no discussion as

projected in the programme took place, but on the contrary, it

was a general discussion. He claimed that since the sting

operation failed miserably, the accused maliciously fabricated

and concocted visual graphics and audio and named it as sting

operation and clandestinely telecast it. He alleged that

Mr.Arnab Goswami, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have made nasty

remarks and observations about his character, with the sole

object to cause annoyance to him and mar his political career,

in view of the elections to the Rajya Sabha that was scheduled

on 11.06.2016. He therefore alleged that all the accused had

conspired to malign his political career by spreading false

propaganda and to cause hatred amongst public and also to

wrongfully gain from such acts. He alleged that guidelines are

prescribed by News Broadcasting Standards Authority for

conducting sting operation, which was violated with impunity,

as there was no public interest involved. He claimed that

Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,

1995, mandates that no person shall transmit or re-transmit

through a cable service, any programme unless it is in

conformity with the prescribed program code. He claimed that

under Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, any

programme containing anything obscene, defamatory,

deliberate, false and suggestive of half innuendos, and half

truths which criticises maligns or slanders any individual, in

person or certain groups or segments or social publics and

moral life etc., is prohibited. He claimed that the act of

doctoring the graphics and using his picture and telecasting it,

violated various provisions of the penal law and invaded his

privacy. He alleged that the accused No.2 being the Editor in

Chief and Chairman of 'India Today' news channel is

responsible for permitting telecasting of such an objectionable

material. He therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated

against the accused. Being aggrieved by the First Information

registered, the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed this petition.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the

petitioner No.1/accused No.2 submitted that the petitioner No.1

is the Editor in Chief of TV Today Network Limited. He

contended that the accused No.2 is sought to be involved in the

investigation though there is no allegation against the accused

No.2. He submits that unless there is a clear averment that the

accused No.2 was involved in the commission of offence, he

cannot be vicariously proceeded against. He submitted that the

respondent No.1 has registered a case for commission of

offences under Sections 417, 420, 468, 153A and 120B read

with Section 34 of IPC, though reading of the entire complaint

does not disclose the commission of the said offences. Thus, he

contended that the accused No.2 cannot be vicariously held

liable for any offence not committed by him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 and

3/accused Nos.3 and 4 contended that even if the entire

allegations in the complaint are taken as true, an offence under

Sections 417, 420 or 468 of IPC is not made out against the

accused. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the

High Court of Delhi in the case of Anil Sharma and others Vs.

S.N.Marwaha and Another - 1994 (30) DRJ, judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of International Advanced

Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New

Materials (ARCI) and Others Vs. NIMRA Cerglass

Technics Private Limited and Another - 2016(1) SCC 348.

He therefore contended that the case registered by the

respondent No.1 is a clear abuse of process of law and Court

and therefore, this Court should exercise jurisdiction under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, in support of his claim, he relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and

others - 2009(7) SCC 712. He contended that unless there

was material to show that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were

liable for the alleged criminal acts, they cannot be held

vicariously liable. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Kalyani Vs. Janak

C.Mehta & Ors. - 2009(1) SCC 516, Maksud Saiyed Vs.

State of Gujarat & Ors. - 2008 (5) SCC 668 and

Ravindranatha Bajpe Vs. Mangalore Special Economic

Zone Ltd. & Ors. - 2021 (V) SLT 755. He submitted that the

petitioners being the members of a free press, are entitled to

publish acts or conduct of public officials in discharge of their

official duty, unless it is shown that such publication is made in

reckless disregard for truth. He contended that following the

news paper reports, the Election Commission of India had

passed an order dated 09.06.2016, and directed the Returning

Officer for the elections to Rajya Sabha to file a complaint

against the members of the Legislative Assembly and others

involved. He therefore contends that the action of the

petitioners in publishing the news item is protected under

Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. In this regard, he

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

R.Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 1994(6) SCC 632.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 submitted that the petitioners have unduly rushed to this

Court without even awaiting an investigation to be concluded.

He submitted that a perusal of the programme telecast would

show that the respondent No.2 was not involved in any

discussion relating to the elections to the Rajya Sabha. On the

contrary, the respondent No.2 is shown in bad light along with

those who were accused of collecting money for votes. He

submitted that there is not even a shred of evidence against

the respondent No.2 to justify the allegation that he had made

any demand for casting his vote in favour of any candidate.

However, the way in which, the respondent No.2 was portrayed

in the programme, gave an impression to the viewing general

public that the respondent No.2 was involved in the said

offence. He submitted that the accused are all on bail and

therefore, this Court should be slow in interfering with the

investigation of the case. In this regard, he relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others - Crl. A. No.330/2021 dated 13.04.2021. He

submitted that the Apex Court while considering the purport of

a sting operation in the case of Rajat Prasad Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation - (2014) 6 SCC 495 held at

paragraph Nos.18 and 19 as follows:

18. Thus, sting operations conducted by the law-

enforcement agencies themselves in the above jurisdictions have not been recognised as absolute principles of crime detection and proof of criminal acts. Such operations by the enforcement agencies are yet to be experimented and tested in India and legal acceptance thereof by our legal system is yet to be answered. Nonetheless, the question that arises in the present case is what would be the position of such operations if conducted not by a State agency but by a private individual and the liability, not of the principal offender honeytrapped into committing the crime, but that of the sting operator who had stained his own hands while entrapping what he considers to be the main crime and the main offender. Should such an individual i.e. the sting operator be held to be criminally liable for commission of the offence that is inherent and inseparable from the process by which commission of another offence is sought to be established? Should the commission of the first offence be understood to be obliterated and extinguished in the face of claims of larger public interest that the sting operator seeks to make, namely, to expose the main offender of a serious crime injurious to

public interest? Can the commission of the initial offence by the sting operator be understood to be without any criminal intent and only to facilitate the commission of the other offence by the "main culprit" and its exposure before the public? These are some of the ancillary questions that arise for our answer in the present appeals and that too at the threshold of the prosecution i.e. before the commencement of the trial.

19. The answer to the above, in our considered view would depend, as in any criminal case, on the facts and circumstances thereof. A crime does not stand obliterated or extinguished merely because its commission is claimed to be in public interest. Any such principle would be abhorrent to our criminal jurisprudence. At the same time the criminal intent behind the commission of the act which is alleged to have occasioned the crime will have to be established before the liability of the person charged with the commission of crime can be adjudged. The doctrine of mens rea, though a salient feature of the Indian criminal justice system, finds expression in different statutory provisions requiring proof of either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. Such proof

is to be gathered from the surrounding facts established by the evidence and materials before the court and not by a process of probe of the mental state of the accused which the law does not contemplate. The offence of abetment defined by Section 107 IPC or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC would, thus, require criminal intent on the part of the offender like any other offence. Both the offences would require existence of a culpable mental state which is a matter of proof from the surrounding facts established by the materials on record. Therefore, whether the commission of an offence under Section 12 of the PC Act read with Section 120-B IPC had been occasioned by the acts attributed to the appellant-accused or not, ideally, is a matter that can be determined only after the evidence in the case is recorded."

He therefore contends that the freedom of expression

cannot be stretched beyond the limits of decency, as that would

infringe the individual private right of the persons such as the

respondent No.2. He also relied upon a judgment of High Court

of Delhi in the case of Courts On its Own Motion Vs. State -

2008 (100) DRJ 144 where it was held:

"17. There is no doubt and there is no second opinion that "truth" is required to be shown to the public in public interest and the same can be shown whether in the nature of sting operation or otherwise but what we feel is that entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and should not be permitted. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on 6th April, 1992 titled Keith Jacobson v. United States, 503 US

540. In the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in their zeal to enforce law, law protectors must not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind a disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute. Where the government or their agents induce an individual to break the law and the defence of entrapment is at issue, the prosecution must meet and answer by establishing and answering beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. The

Supreme Court of the United States has also declared that law enforcement officials go too far when they implant in the mind of an innocent person a disposition to commit an offence and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute. The Court held in very unambiguous terms that the Government should not play on the weakness of an innocent party and beguile the party into committing a crime which the party otherwise would not have attempted. While artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those who are engaged in criminal enterprises, there would be a need to prove that the person in question had a predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies. The Government must not punish an individual "for an alleged offence which is the produce because of the creative activity of its own officials". Ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States is in our considered opinion can be applied to the instant context also i.e. to the media."

7. He also referred to another judgment of High Court

of Delhi in the case of Tarun J. Tejpal & Anr. Vs.

Jayalakshmi Jaitly & Anr. - ILR (2008) 1 Delhi 35 and

contended that it is the duty of the media to ensure proper

investigation before a programme is aired. He contended that if

the freedom of speech to expose the corruption of public

officials is their right, it is also their duty to ensure that the

news is based on proper investigation and verification and the

publication is not aimed at sensational journalism. He

contended that even if what is said is the truth, bonafide, still

the defamatory action cannot be avoided, as it is for the person

publishing, who has to establish before the Court that he has

done all due diligence required before publishing it. He also

referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of

Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI - 2008 SCC Online Del 711

which also related to a case of sting operation, where the Court

held that though the freedom of press is a special right under

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the restriction

under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be

neglected and the accountability is the sina qua non. Thus, he

contends that greater power comes with greater responsibility

and the petitioners being in-charge of National Media, were

bound to be more cautious while dealing with high dignitaries

such as the respondent No.2. He therefore, contended that the

petitioners are bound to cooperate in the investigation of the

offence and this Court should not exercise jurisdiction to quash

the proceedings. He submits that the respondent No.2 who is

the victim of yellow journalism by the petitioners, would be

deprived of his right to ensure that his tormentors are

punished.

8. In order to verify the contents of the programme

that was telecast on India Today and Times Now news

channels, this Court secured the compact disc containing the

video recording of the programme, which was played in the

Court. After viewing it, this Court felt that image of the

respondent No.2 was unnecessarily shown along with some

members of Legislative Assembly who were allegedly involved

in the cash for votes scam, which the petitioners tried to

uncover through a sting operation. The entire videograph does

not disclose that the respondent No.2 had even whispered that

he would cast his vote for cash. On the contrary, the audio

track, disclosed that the respondent No.2 was discussing about

the on going cricket match in Bengaluru. It is therefore, clear

that the image of the respondent No.2 was shown

inappropriately in the news article that was published by the

petitioners.

9. The case in Cr.No.92/2016 is registered by the

respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections

417, 420, 468, 153A and 120B read with 34 and Section 65 of

the Information Technology Act, 2000. A perusal of the

information by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1

does not disclose any allegation, that is sufficient enough to

constitute an offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of

IPC. It is also evident that there are no allegations to

constitute an offence under Section 468 of IPC. However, since

it is alleged that the petitioners have doctored the graphics and

have telecasted the same making derogatory remarks against

the respondent No.2, an offence of making a false electronic

record to harm the reputation of the respondent No.2 cannot be

ruled out, which is punishable under Section 469 of IPC. The

question whether the petitioners had any intention to harm the

reputation of the respondent No.2 or not, and whether the

petitioners had any justification for publishing the article

against the respondent No.2 or not are all matters that have to

be ascertained during the course of investigation. Therefore the

petitioners cannot contend at this stage, that no offence is

made out against them.

10. It is well settled that a complaint need not set out

the full particulars of an offence and all that is required is to

broadly inform the commission of a cognizable offence to the

nearest police station and upon receipt of such information, the

police would consider whether such information constitutes a

cognizable offence or not and if yes, the investigation would

ensue. In this regard it is profitable to refer to the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs.

State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 372 where it is

held as follows:

"Stated briefly, the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it were an "encyclopedia" of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the overt acts therein. Non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal."

11. In so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, he

claims to be the Chairman and Editor of TV Today Network

Limited. Though there is no vicarious liability, when it comes to

an offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal

code, yet, the question whether the petitioner No.1 had prior

information about the intended sting operation and the telecast

of the incriminating programme against the respondent No.2, is

a fact that has to be investigated by the jurisdictional police.

However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner No.1 is

now aged nearly 78 years, it is appropriate to direct the

respondent No.1 not to insist the personal presence of

petitioner No.1 for the investigation, unless, his role in the sting