Telangana High Court

Ysr Sarma vs The State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
          CRIMINAL PETITION No.8185 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in

CC.No.669 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, at Nizambad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 503

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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

survey No.180 situated at Nizamabad bypass of Khanapur

outskirts. It is stated that respondent No.2 along with his

family members filed 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

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

status quo orders in 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 was numbered as

C.C.No.669 of 2022, wherein, summons were issued to the

petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Kailash Nath PSS, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

publication in question is only reporting of press release from

the rural Police and not an independent reporting by

newspaper, as such, no mala fides can be attributed against

the petitioner. He contended that this Court quashed the

proceedings initiated against accused No.1 vide order dated

16.12.2022 made in Crl.P.No.11303 of 2022 and observed

that prima facie there is no offence of defamation when the

news article reads that 'on the basis of complaint a crime was

registered by the concerned authorities'. He asserted that

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

except vaguely stating that the publication in question is said

to be published at the behest of third parties, there are no

other allegations leveled against the petitioner to attract the

offences as alleged. He reiterated that the role and

responsibility of the petitioner is no where stated in the

complaint and there are no specific averments against the

petitioner to constitute the offences as alleged.

5. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for

petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Aroon Purie Vs. State of Nct of Delhi 1. The relevant

paragraph No.25 reads as under:

"23. Similarly, the law laid down in

K.M. Mathew8, which has subsequently been

followed, is to the effect that though the benefit

of presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act

is not applicable so far as Chief Editors or

Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the matter would

be required to be considered purely from the

perspective of the allegations made in the

complaint. If the allegations are sufficient and

specific, no benefit can be extended to such

Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Conversely, it

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

would logically follow that if there are no specific

and sufficient allegations, the matter would

stand reinforced by reason of the fact that no

presumption can be invoked against such Chief

Editor or Editor-in-Chief."

6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended

that the offences punishable under Sections 499, 501 and 502

of IPC are distinct offences and ingredients under each of the

said provisions are required to be satisfied for a complaint to

be maintainable against the accused, whereas, in the present

case there are no specific averments against the petitioner

who works as editor in the accused No.1 - company and has

published an article in newspaper, believing the information

received from the public servant to be true and bona fide.

Therefore, while placing reliance on the judgments rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and Another

Vs. State of Karnataka and Another 2 and in the case of

State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal 3, prayed this Court to allow

the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated

against the petitioner.

2015 7 SCC 423

AIR 1992 SC 604

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 - State,

opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner

that as the proceedings against accused No.1 - company are

already quashed vide order dated 27.03.2024 made in

Crl.P.No.11305 of 2022 the proceedings against the

petitioner/accused No.3 are also liable to be quashed and

contended that the allegations leveled against the accused

No.1 and petitioner/accused No.3 are different. He asserted

that the accused No.1 is a newspaper company and the

petitioner/accused No.3 is the person who published false

news in the newspaper without verifying the true facts in the

matter. He lamented that whether the information was

received to petitioner from rural Police Station or public

servant is a matter that cannot be decided at this stage and

the same requires trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to

dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

admittedly, on receipt of information from the rural Police

Station, the petitioner published a news article in the daily

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

newspaper with regard to a land grabbing case in Nizamabad,

and as the same was published in the newspaper with good

faith, the act comes under the exceptions provided under

Section 499 of IPC, whereas, it is the specific contention of

respondent No.2/de facto complainant that the said news is

false news and that the same was published with an intention

to defame him.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash

the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to

see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows

that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as

alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori 4, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is

held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not

function as a Court of appeal or revision.

This Court has, in several judgments, held

that the inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS, J Crl.P.No.8185 OF 2024

sparingly, carefully and with caution. The

High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

should normally refrain from giving a prima

facie decision in a case where the entire

facts are incomplete and hazy, more so

when the evidence has not been collected

and produced before the Court and the

issues involved, whether factual or legal,

are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen

in their true perspective without sufficient

material."