Kerala High Court
Rajeev Chandrasekhar vs Anayara Shaji on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 9019 OF 2019
[TO QUASH ANNEXURE-1 COMPLAINT NUMBERED AS CC 18/2018 PENDING
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR,AGED 55 YEARS
S/O AIR COMMODORE. M.K. CHANDRASEKHAR, RESIDING AT NO.
408, 2ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560
034.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE
SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE
SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 ANAYARA SHAJI,AGED 55 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN, RITHU, T.C. 14/2056(4),
VENNPAALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 029.
2 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
R2 BY PP-SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC No.9019 of 2019 2
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in
C.C.No.18/2018 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamathitta which
was instituted on the basis of a complaint
submitted by the 1st respondent for the offences
punishable under Section 500 r/w. Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The basic allegation in Annexure-1
private complaint is relating to certain
defamatory statements alleged to have been made
by the 1st accused, the editor and anchor of
Asianet News,a Malayalam T.V. news channel,
against certain Advocates who are the members of
Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association. The 1st
respondent herein is a lawyer practicing at
Thiruvananthapuram and also the Secretary of
Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association. It was
alleged in Annexure-1 complaint that, the
statements made by the 1st accused during the
News Hour programme at 9 a.m. on 15.10.2016, to
the effect that, the lawyers have committed
atrocities inside the court room and the 1st
respondent herein has acted like a goonda etc
are defamatory in nature. It was also averred in
the said complaint that, the aforesaid
statements are incorrect and were made by the
1st accused with the intention to defame the
lawyer fraternity and also the 1st respondent
herein.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he
was arraigned as one of the accused persons
under the impression that, he was the Chairman
and Managing Director of Asianet News channel.
But, by relying upon Annexures II and III
documents, it is pointed out that he resigned
from the Directorship of M/s Asianet News
Network Private Ltd, with effect from 4.11.2013
and as on the date of airing the news item which
is the subject matter of Annexure-I complaint,
he was not a Director. It is also his case that,
Annexure-I complaint do not contain any specific
allegations indicating that the petitioner
herein had any role in selection of news item
and had any control over the discussion during
which the aforesaid defamatory statements were
alleged to have been made. In such
circumstances, the petitioner is seeking to
invoke inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.PC) to quash all proceedings against him
pursuant to Annexure-I.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for
the 2nd respondent. Even though notice was
served to the 1st respondent, there is no
appearance for him.
5. The first contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that as on the
date of occurrence of the alleged crime, the
petitioner was not the Director of the Company.
In support of the said contention, Annexure-II
which is a Form 20B under Section 159 of the
Companies Act, 1956 wherein the details of the
status of the Directors of M/s Asianet Network
Private Limited which is the Company managing
the news channel are mentioned. On going through
the said document, which is a public document,
it is evident that he was a Director of the said
Company for the period from 29.9.2008 till
4.11.2013. Annexure-III is Form 32 issued
pursuant to Section 303(2), 264(2) or 266(1)(a)
and 266(1)(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1956
which is a document containing the particulars
of appointment of Managing Director, Directors,
Manager and Secretary. In the aforesaid document
also, it is shown that, the petitioner herein
had resigned from the Board of Directors with
effect from 4.11.2013. As per Annexure-I
complaint, the programme which allegedly
contained defamatory statement against the 1st
respondent was aired on 15.10.2016. Going by the
aforesaid documents, it is evident that as on
the date of occurrence of the offence, the
petitioner was not holding any official position
so as to control the affairs of the said
Company.
6. Another contention put forward by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that even
if it is assumed for argument sake that the
petitioner was the Chairman and Managing
Director of the Company, which is running the
news channel, no offence under Sections 499 and
500 of the IPC would get attracted even going
through the averments contained in Annexure-I
complaint. It is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that, in order to
attract an offence under Section 499 of IPC,
there must be specific allegation in the
complaint that the accused who is allegedly
holding the charge of Chairman and Managing
Director, was responsible for selection of the
news item. In this case, Annexure-1 complaint
does not contain any such allegation. In support
of the said contention, the learned counsel
relies on the judgment rendered by this Court in
M.M.Hassan v. State of Kerala [(2016)SCC Online
Ker.16925]. In the said judgment, a learned
Single Judge of this Court has considered the
said question in similar circumstances in
respect of another news channel. The defamatory
statements alleged therein, were in respect of a
programme aired in a T.V.channel and the
Managing Director of the Company which was
running the news channel was sought to be
implicated for the offence under Section 499 of
IPC. In the said case, after referring to a
number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it was concluded that, in the
absence of any specific allegations as to the
role of the accused in selecting the news item,
the charges under Section 499 of IPC would not
get attracted. In paragraph 12 of the said
judgment, it is observed as follows:
"12. In the present case, it is blatantly obvious that
there is no allegation against the present petitioner
that he was having knowledge of the publication of
such imputation or that he was directly responsible
for publication of such imputation. The Managing
Director is supposed to have the control over the
management of the Television Channel and its financial
aspects. He is not directly concerned with the airing
of the news items and unless there are materials to
come to such a conclusion, he cannot be roped in for
having committed the offence under section 499 of the
IPC. Principles of vicarious liability is not
applicable to Criminal offences and in the absence of
any provision laid down in the statute, the Managing
Director cannot be held vicariously liable for the
offence committed by the Company or its employees.
Merely because the accused happened to be the Managing
Director of the T.V. News Channel, no criminal case
can lie against him for offence punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC."
7. In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala [AIR
1990 SC 2206], the aforesaid legal principle has
been clearly clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It was held therein that, in the absence
of any specific averment in the complaint to the
effect that the Managing Director is responsible
for selecting the news item, he cannot be roped
in as an accused in a proceeding under Section
499 of the IPC. The aforesaid view was taken in
Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D.Bhagvandas [1986
Cri.LJ 888] and Prabhu Chawla v. A.U.Sheriff
[1995 Cri.LJ 1922] as well.
8. In the light of the above judicial
precedents, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief sought for in this Crl.M.C. This is
because, a reading of Annexure-1 complaint would
clearly reveal that the entire allegations made
therein were with respect to the 1st accused. No
where in the said complaint, the role of the
petitioner herein is mentioned. As held in the
aforesaid judgments, there is no concept of
vicarious liability in a criminal proceedings
unless the statute specifically contemplates for
the same. As far as the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, there is no provision which
contemplates vicarious liability and hence in
the absence of any specific pleading as to the
role of the petitioner, no offence under Section
499 of the IPC can be alleged against him.
Moreover, as I have already observed above,
Annexures II and III would clearly indicate that
the petitioner was not the Director of the
Company which is running the news channel as on
the date of occurrence of the offence. It is
seen from Annexure-I complaint that he was
arraigned as one of the accused in his capacity
as the Chairman and Managing Director of the
Company and in fact he was not holding the said
position as on the date of the offence.
9. In such circumstances, considering the
entire materials available on record, I am of
the view that, no proceedings against the
petitioner herein are warranted pursuant to
Annexure-I complaint as no offence against him
is made out.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all
the proceedings in C.C.No.18/2018 on the file
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Pathanamthitta, as against the petitioner herein
alone is quashed. The proceedings can, however,
be continued against the other accused persons.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
JUDGE
pkk
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT C.C.NO.18 OF
2018 PENDING BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA
ANNEXURE-II : TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY ASIANET
NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED IN FORM 20 WITH
THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS.
ANNEXURE-III : TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 32 FILED BY ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED WITH THE MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS, INTIMATING THE MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS ABOUT THE RESIGNATION OF THE
PETITIONER AS DIRECTOR OF ASIANET NEWS NETWORK
PRIVATE LIMITED.
ANNEXURE-IV : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS (DAILY STATUS) OF
THE C.C. PENDING BEFORE THE CJM, PATHANAMTHITTA
OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS WEBSITE.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- P.S. TO JUDGE
