Madras High Court
The Chief Editor Sathiyam Tv vs M/S. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited on 23 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5688 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL. OP(MD). No.5688 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4372 of 2024
The Chief Editor Sathiyam TV
M/s.Sathiyam Television Private Limited,
Rep. By S.Kannan
S/o.T.Sankara Subiah
No.1, Kamaraj Park Street
Royapuram
Chennai- 600 041 ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited
Rep. by its General Manager- HRD
Mr.P.Suriaraj
S/o.R.Purushothaman(late)
Reg. Office at No.57 V.E.Road
Thoothukuti
Tamil Nadu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call
for the records and quash the complaint against the petitioner/second accused
in STC No.1947 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thoothukudi.
_____________
Page No. 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5688 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Perumal
For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in STC No.1947 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thoothukudi.
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose the case are as follows:
The respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the
petitioner herein alleging that the first accused an erstwhile Director of the
complainant bank was removed from the position as a Director under fit and
property norms and the subject matter is pending on the file of High Court,
Madras in A.S.No.97 of 2023. The first accused had an intention to defame the
bank in order to wreck vengeance and he had taken the proxy register from the
bank. during the verification held before the last AGM. During search made by
the bank officials the said incident came to light through CCTV footage. Later
it was recovered from him by the bank. While so the first accused held a press
meet on 18.09.2019 at Chennai Press Club by a few officers and raised several
issues against the complainant bank and its Director. The interview was
attended by all the news media and the interview captured by M/s.Vaan TV had
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
uploaded the interview on YOUTUBE. The first accused had clearly stated
that a fine of Rs.505 levied on the Foreign investors and a fine of Rs.531
crores on the bank totalling Rs.1037 and has stated that the contravention was
proved before the Directorate of Enforcement. The same was once again
reiterated and the end of the interview which created panic reaction amongst
its customers and share holders alike. The second accused herein on
18.09.2019 aired the new items with the following head lines by the news
reader “ jkpo;ehL nkh;ffz;ily; tq;fpapd; jw;;Nghjpa ,af;Fdh;fs;
1000Nfhb &gha;f;F Nky; Coy; nra;J tq;fpia jpthy; epiyf;F
js;spAs;sdh;” also aired the defamatory allegations made by the first accused
in their channel, without calling upon the complainant bank and verifying
about its veracity of the claim intentionally made by the first accused to
defame the complainant bank and also to cause loss and hardship to the
complainant bank. The second accused being rated one of the top television
news channels in the State ought to have shown responsibility and restraint
before airing the news item and ascertained the facts before hand. The second
respondent has intention to sensitize the news went to the extent of saying that
the bank would go bankrupt. The second respondent spiced up the news by
raising a claim mentioned above either, in any event, a collusive overt act with
an ulterior motive or to increase TRP ratings. The overt act is per se
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
defamatory. Based on the complaint lodged the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 499, 500 and 505(1)(b) of IPC.
Now the second accused is challenging the cognizance taken by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was working as a Chief Editor of Sathiyam Mobile Version and he
was arrayed as second accused in the criminal defamation case in STC No.1947
of 2023. The first accused is the person who gave a press interview against the
controversial activities of the management of the said Bank. The offences
charged against the petitioner are 499, 500 and 505(1)(b) of IPC. The
allegation against the petitioner is that he published the selected parts of the
clipping of the press meet as “ jkpo;ehL nkh;ffz;ily; tq;fpapd; jw;;Nghjpa
,af;Fdh;fs; 1000Nfhb &gha;f;F Nky; Coy; nra;J tq;fpia jpthy;
epiyf;F js;spAs;sdh;”. The requirement under law for taking congizance
under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., and the requirements under Section Section 202
of Cr.P.C., were totally disregarded. There was total lack of application of
mind on the part of the trial Court. To attract the provisions under Section 499
of IPC there must be a publication of an amputation, intending to harm the
reputation of the complainant There was no such statement against the second
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
accused in the body of the complaint. The pre-cognizance evidence given by
P.w.2 and PW.3 does not reveal any fact satisfying the requirements under
Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC and Section 202 of Cr.PC., have not been
followed. There are no ingredients available to constitute the offence as against
this petitioner. The press interview was telecasted and published by many
other TV channels. The complainant bank has not chosen to initiate action
against others. There are no ingredients to constitute the offences under
Sections 499, 500 and 505(1)(b) of IPC, thereby the pending proceedings are
liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that
the respondent gave a defamatory speech about the bank. The erst while
Director in the press meeting the second respondent without ascertaining truth
spread in the headline that as “ jkpo;ehL nkh;ffz;ily; tq;fpapd;
jw;;Nghjpa ,af;Fdh;fs; 1000Nfhb &gha;f;F Nky; Coy; nra;J
tq;fpia jpthy; epiyf;F js;spAs;sdh;” and therefore the customers of
the bank went there to withdraw the deposit without verifying the truth reality
and they published the defamatory words by playing the particular line in the
TV news. Therefore the petitioner has committed the offence of defamation.
As per the complaint there are materials available to constitute the offence and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
there are prima facie materials to take cognizance and thereby the trial Court
has taken cognizance after following the procedures. All the grounds raised by
the petitioner can be taken as defence before the trial Court, hence the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The respondent has lodged a private complaint against this petitioner
and another for defamation speech and the trial Court has also taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 499, 500 and 505(1)(b) of IPC. On
perusal of the complaint the petitioner spread the following news in the TV
scroll board as “ jkpo;ehL nkh;ffz;ily; tq;fpapd;
jw;;Nghjpa ,af;Fdh;fs; 1000Nfhb &gha;f;F Nky; Coy; nra;J
tq;fpia jpthy; epiyf;F js;spAs;sdh;” and the petitioner also not
denied the above said news telecasted by the petitioner. According to the
petitioner there are no ingredients to constitute the offence but as per the
complaint there are prima facie materials available to constitute the offence and
as per the complaint the second accused on 18.09.2019 added extra news items
as “ jkpo;ehL nkh;ffz;ily; tq;fpapd; jw;;Nghjpa ,af;Fdh;fs;
1000Nfhb &gha;f;F Nky; Coy; nra;J tq;fpia jpthy; epiyf;F
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
js;spAs;sdh;” . The first accused in their Channel, without calling upon the
complainant Bank and verifying about its veracity of the claim made by 1"
accused defamed the bank and also caused loss and hardship to the
complainant Bank, apart from creating a panic situation amongst the account
holders, depositors and the general public. The 2nd accused being rated one of
the top television news channels in the state ought to have shown responsibility
and restraint before airing the news item and ascertained the facts before hand.
The 2nd accused to sensationalize the news went to the extent of saying that
the bank would go bankrupt. The 2nd accused spiced up the news by raising a
claim as mentioned above. Further as per the complaint the above overt acts
created fear in the minds of the depositors and the account holders; which
resulted in panic withdrawals from the branches, which is clearly manifested by
the 20% spike in the withdrawals and foreclosures from the corresponding
period in the previous years and the complainant bank faced preclosure of
deposits to the tune of Rs. 182,32,23,815/- immediately thereafter, from its
depositors and long standing customers. Further, the managers of several of the
branches of the complainant bank were hit by a barrage of enquires as to the
financial stability of the bank which could not be allayed by the complainant
Bank's explanations. Therefore there are some allegations to constitute the
offence. The trial Court also had applied its mind and passed order after
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
recording sworn statement of the witnesses and the irregularities as pointed out
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could be tested through trial,
therefore at this stage those allegations cannot be considered and it is for the
trial Court to consider at the time of trial.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
following judgments:
1. P.Karthikeyan Vs S. Anathanaryanan reported in 1998(1) Crimes 44
2. A.K. Hade Vs Shailendra Singh Yadav reported in 2018 ILR (M.P)
3. V.S. Achuthanandan Vs G. Kamalamma reported in 2008 CriLJ 4221
4. Nakkheeran publications Vs C.K.Dhandapani reported in 2022(3)
MadWN (cri) 322
5. Sri Arjun Charan Samal Vs Sankar Prasad Agarwalla reported in
2000(19) Orrisa Cri.R. 92
6. N.Ram Vs RSS M/s Vijay TV Pvt. Ltd reported in 2012(2) CCR 471
7. M/s.Vijay TV Pvt Lrd v.s K.R.Kukesh reported in 2022(1) LW (Crl.)
8. Jawaharlal Dards vs Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kaspasikar reported in
1998(4) SCC 112
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
9. Aroon Purie vs. State of Haryana reported in 2007(4) RCR
(Criminal) 6
10. Fayaz Ahmad Kaloo .vs. Ali mohd Rather reported in 2015(38) RCR
(Criminal) 78
11. Rukmini Narvekar .vs.Vijaya Satarderkar reported in 2008(14)
SCC 1
8. On careful perusal of the above said judgments they will not be
applicable to the present facts of the case because in this case there are
allegations to constitute the offence and it could be tested through trial Court
and at this stage this Court has to see whether any prima facie materials
available to constitute the offence or not and this Court cannot mini trial while
exercising the jurisdiction of Section 528 of BNSS.
9. Therefore as discussed supra this Court is of the opinion that all the
grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition can be canvassed by the trial
Court during trial and at this stage this Court can see whether any prima facie
materials to proceed with the case or not. In this case there are prima facie
materials to constitute the offence and therefore this petition has no merits and
deserves to be dismissed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
10. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
23.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
aav
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
23.04.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
