Telangana High Court
Andhra Prabha News Paper Group vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11305 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.1, 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
SKS,J
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 Kailash Nath P. S. S, 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 Managing Director 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
Crl.P.No.10257 of 2021 dated 28.03.2022
SKS,J
Andhra Pradesh 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.1.
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
Crl.P.No.5429 of 2006 dated 26.02.2010
Manu/SC/0016/2015
SKS,J
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 Managing Director 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 Managing Director 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.1 in C.C.No.669
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D.ORDER
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11305 of 2022
Date: 27.03.2024
gms
