Madras High Court
N.Raghav Reddy vs Ashok Giri on 13 September, 2019
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.03.2018
Pronounced on : 13.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 and
Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2013
N.Raghav Reddy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ashok Giri ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.3104 of 2013 on the
file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan,
Senior Counsel
*****
ORDER
The petitioner is an accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet as C.C.No.3104 of 2013.
1/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
2.The gist of the case is that the respondent is the son of reputed Army officer and he hails from a reputed family. His great grand father is a poet, who pioneered national freedom struggle. The respondent was running a company under the name and style of M/s.Laserwords Private Limited employing more than 600 persons along with his friend Balagopalan Menon for about two decades. The petitioner got acquainted with the respondent during the parents meeting of their respective children. Due to acquaintance, friendship developed between them and the petitioner has taken loan for his business from the respondent. Though initially he was prompt in repaying the loan, thereafter he was in default. The respondent was called to join the business of the petitioner since he was unable to pay dues to the loans. The respondent joined the business, but he was unable to control the entire business, because all the employees hailed from the village of the petitioner and they were more loyal to the petitioner than to the respondent.
3.Thereafter difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and the respondent and by way of compromise, the company of the petitioner was taken over by the respondent with liabilities. Thereafter due to certain delay in compliance of conditions of contract, the petitioner gave a 2/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 complaint to Central Crime Branch, Chennai against the respondent which came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2011 on 06.01.2011. During investigation MOU dated 12.01.2011 was entered between them and the complaint was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter they entered into a Share Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement on 05.02.2011. As per the agreement there was mutual obligations between the petitioner and the respondent. Since both of them were in default, the agreement could not be completed as contemplated, for which again another complaint was given by the petitioner on 26.03.2012 and a case in Crime No.163 of 2012 came to be registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. On registration of the case the respondent was arrested and his news of the arrest, the photographs and the gist of the case came to be flashed in various TV channels viz., Shakshi TV and TV-9 and also in newspapers describing the respondent as “Ashok Giri Mr.420 in Chennai”. Further there was an inherent conspiracy by the petitioner with TV channels and the newspapers “The Hindhu” daily, Magazines “Kazhugu”. Interview of the petitioner was available in the Internet, which caused irreparable damage on the reputation and the character of the respondent. Hence the respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has approached the petitioner with an Idea of having partnership in his business with an ulterior motive to swindle huge sums of money from the petitioner. The petitioner on coming to know about the evil design of the respondent has lodged a complaint before Central Crime Branch earlier which came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2011. During investigation the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he would return and pay the entire money due to the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed another complaint in Crime No.163 of 2012. On investigation charge sheet has been filed, which is pending before the competent Court.
5.As regards the broadcast by the TV channels namely Shakshi TV and TV-9 they had only telecasted the facts of the case on 27.04.2012. The petitioner has nothing to do with the telecast of the cases. The investigating agency normally have press release and the news items about the important happenings are published. The case of the respondent was released by the law enforcing authorities, which is a routine affair, which would fall under exemptions 7 and 8 of Section 499 IPC. 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The lower Court before taking cognizance and issuance of summons has not recorded any subjective satisfaction before taking cognizance, which is bad in law. It is admitted by the respondent that a criminal case is pending against him on the complaint given by the petitioner. To spite vengeance the above case has been filed.
7.Further he submitted that the entire charge is about the publication of arrest, telecasting the facts of the case by TV Channel and newspaper is said to have caused defamation to the respondent. None of the witnesses from the channels and reporters from the news papers have been cited as witnesses. Likewise the imputation material have not been produced except filed unauthorised CD's. Hence he prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3104 of 2013 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
8.On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner knowingly had given a false case against the respondent to the Central Crime Branch Police and stage mannered the 5/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 arrest and gave wide publicity to tarnish the image of the respondent, against which the respondent filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.15780 of 2014. Further the respondent hails from a reputed family and his father is a retired army officer who has served the nation, his great grand father is a poet, who pioneered national freedom struggle for independence. Thus he hails from an illustrious family and he is a successful business man. He had acquainted with the petitioner, since both of their children studied in the same school and they had developed friendship. The respondent lent huge sums of money for the business of the petitioner, which the petitioner was unable to repay and later handed over his sick company and thereafter the respondent had to infuses huge sums of money. Despite the same the company had run into losses. All the employees were from the native of the petitioner and they had been more loyal to him. Hence the respondent was unable to run the company successfully and he was in total chaos. The petitioner has given a false complaint against him which was registered in Crime No.5 of 2011. The Central Crime Branch exerted undue pressure keeping the respondent under duress and had obtained an MOU dated 12.01.2011 by force.
6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
9.Thereafter the Share Purchase Agreement was entered between the respondent and the petitioner and the Escrow agreement was also entered on 05.02.2012. The entire episode has been managed by the petitioner due to his high connection and obliging officials. The respondent was arrested in a case of civil dispute which was given in a criminal cloak and the arrest of the respondent was widely published in the TV Channels and tarnishing the image of the respondent and the entire news created by the petitioner. The petitioner has foisted a false complaint and caused imputation against the respondent. The petitioner's contention of claiming exemptions is to be decided only during the trial. Hence he opposed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3104 of 2013.
10.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials of the case.
11.It is admitted that there is a criminal case pending between the petitioner and the respondent and the there is a section in the office of the Commissioner of Police wherein the press are briefed about the important and sensational happenings. Likewise, one such news is the arrest of the respondent, for which the petitioner could not be found fault with. Further 7/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 on the submissions and the available materials this Court finds that the reported news of arrest of the respondent in Crime No.163 of 2012 would come under the exemptions 7 and 8 of Section 499 IPC for the news telecasted and published by the TV channels and print media. Further in this case admittedly none of the reporters or editors have been cited or arrayed as accused. In view of the same the proof of publication becomes questionable.
12.On perusal of the complaint it is seen that in the list of documents the CD has been filed, though there is a mention of transcription, the transcriptor has not been cited as witness.
13.Regarding the telecast and internet publication, the recorded version has been produced as CD, which is not supported with 65(b) Certification. Further it is seen that the respondent has been arrested in criminal case on the complaint given by the petitioner and this case is a counter blast to spite vengeance. There is no tangible material to proceed against the petitioner.
8/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013
14.In view of the above, the continuation of the above case would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.3104 of 2013 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is hereby quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2019 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To The IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.
9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.28079 of 2013 13.09.2019 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in