Karnataka High Court
Tv9 Karnataka Private Limited vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 23.03.2026
Pronounced on : 10.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.17138 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. TV9 KARNATAKA PRIVATE LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI MAHENDRA MISHRA,
S/O SRI MISHRA,
AGED MAJOR,
NO. 13/1, OPPOSITE TO HOCKEY STADIUM,
RHENIUS STREET, CIVIL STATION,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
2. M.S.NAGESH GOWDA
S/O SRI SHIVANNA,
AGED MAJOR,
EX-SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT.LTD.,
R/O NO.163, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
KAMALA NAGAR,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. H.V. KIRAN,
S/O SRI R.VENKATARAMU,
AGED MAJOR,
2
EX-PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENT
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.,
R/AT NO.124, 2ND MAIN,
ITI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 039.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CBI/SCB/CHENNAI,
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CBI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . T. RAJASHEKARA,
DY.SUPDT. OF POLICE,
CBI, SPECIAL TASK BRANCH,
III FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 090.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.13702/2025, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.05.2025 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR OFFENCES U/S 5 R/W 16 OF
THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995,
PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE XVII ADDL.CJM (ACJM)
BENGLAURU AS THE SAID PROVISIONS STAND DECRIMINALISED
BY THE JAN VISHWAS (AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS) ACT, 2023.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners/TV9 Karnataka Private Limited and its
correspondents are before this Court calling in question proceedings
in C.C.No.13702 of 2025 pending before the XVII Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru - Special Court for CBI Cases.
2. Heard Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. An incident takes place on 02-03-2012 at the City Civil
Court complex, Bengaluru. It forms the genesis of the present
proceedings. One Sri Gali Janardhana Reddy, former Minister was
to be produced before the 46th Additional City Civil Judge and
4
Special Judge for CBI cases. The incident garnered media attention,
both print and electronic media including the petitioners were
present at the City Civil Court complex to telecast unfolding of
developments. Large number of media personnel entered the Court
premises to capture visuals relating to the production of the former
Minister. The presence of media and broadcasting vans inside the
precincts of the Court complex coupled with pre-existing animosity
between the members of the Bar and sections of media took an
ugly turn. The taking of ugly turn led to squabble and grievous
injuries both to the media, Police and the Advocates. Close to 191
FIRs come to be registered across various police stations in
Bengaluru relating to the violence involving different groups and
members of the public. The Advocates' Association, Bengaluru also
registers multiple complaints seeking action against police
excesses. Judicial intervention was sought by filing petitions before
this Court and this Court then constituted a Special Investigation
Team headed by Sri R.K. Raghavan, former Director of the CBI.
3.2. The Advocates' Association then approached the Apex
Court seeking a direction to entrust the entire investigation to the
5
hands of the CBI. The Apex Court, in terms of its order dated
27-08-2013, entrusted the entire matter to the hands of the CBI.
The investigation commenced into all related incidents including the
allegations concerning media. During the course of investigation,
the Company - TV9 Karnataka Private Limited and two of its
correspondents were arrayed as accused in C.C.No.173 of 2015.
The allegation, in the said criminal case is verbatim similar, as is
alleged in the present case. Against several others, a coordinate
Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings making it clear that
liberty was reserved upon fulfillment of legal requirements and
existence of fresh material against those persons to be arrayed as
accused all over again. On the liberty reserved by this Court while
quashing proceeding in C.C.No.173 of 2015 on 03-09-2019, the
State Government passes an order on 22-11-2023 authorizing
Officers of the CBI to file a complaint for offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation)
Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). On
03-05-2025, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence
under Section 5 r/w 16 of the Act and issues summons to the
6
petitioners. It is the issuance of summons that has driven the
petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONERS:
4. The learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Reddy appearing for the
petitioners would vehemently contend that the date on which the
permission granted was on 22-11-2023 by the State Government to
file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 5
and 16 of the Act. Section 16 was decriminalized. On 05-10-2023 it
was notified that the amendment enabled the offence of television
network to be a civil offence and not criminal offence. The learned
counsel would submit that in spite of change in the statute, the
allegations remain the same that were earlier quashed, but
reserving liberty to the State. There was no fresh material
whatsoever that would enable a fresh crime to be registered.
Verbatim reiteration of allegations that stood quashed would
amount to misuse of liberty granted by this Court. The learned
counsel would submit that the concerned Court without application
of mind and without noticing unexplained delay of 10 years in
7
registering the subject complaint takes cognizance and issues
summons. Therefore, the proceedings before the concerned Court
must not be permitted to be continued.
CBI:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri P. Prasanna Kumar
representing the CBI would not dispute the position that the
amendment to the Act led to decriminalization of Section 16 of the
Act and the amendment to the Rules brings in that it is a civil
offence. However, he would submit that the concerned Court has
now taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, the
proceedings must be permitted to be continued. It is the act of
these petitioners by generating certain fake news the entire issue
sprang up. This Court, while quashing the proceedings, reserved
liberty to the CBI to proceed against the petitioners on the same
cause of action after complying with legal necessities as there was
no sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., to register a crime for
offence under Section 153A(1)(b) of the IPC. He would further
submit that CBI is to be permitted to investigate into these
offences, as Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
8
1946 includes the offences under the Act, could be investigated into
by the CBI. The learned counsel would contend that, as on the date
of commission of offence, the Act and the offence under the Act
were subsisting. The amendment has come about at a later point in
time and as such, it would not mean that the offence should be
obliterated on the ground that today the offence is decriminalized.
It is the date of the offence that assumes significance and seeks
dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The incident
that has happened and the link in the chain of events are also not
in dispute. The Apex Court refers the matter to the hands of the
CBI on the following reasons in terms of its order dated 27-08-2013
passed in Civil Appeal No.7159 of 2013:
9
".... .... ....
8) It is seen that on account of serious and unfortunate
incident involving advocates, police personnel, journalists,
media persons in the City Civil Court Complex at Bangalore on
02.03.2012, large number of persons were assaulted and
injured. It is alleged by the appellant-Association that the same
was caused due to the action of the police and the media. The
appellant-Association also raised serious allegations against the
print and electronic media in broadcasting false and provocative
news thereby maligning and demeaning the advocate
community.
9) Initially, the appellant-Association filed a Writ Petition
No. 7623 of 2012 praying for a direction to the State
Government to entrust the investigation to the CBI. Several
other writ petitions were also filed. By impugned order dated
16.05.2012, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by
constituting a SIT headed by Shri R.K. Raghavan, a retired
Director of the CBI and other officers. It is further seen that on
19.10.2012, this Court reconstituted the SIT to investigate into
the incident and also directed to submit a report within three
months from the date of the order.
10) It is the grievance of the appellant-Association that in
spite of the directions of this Court and a series of notifications
issued by the State Government constituting and re-constituting
SIT for one reason or the other, the fact remains that even after
a lapse of one year and five months from the date of the
incident, the investigation has not yet been commenced. It is
unfortunate that even after the order of this Court dated
19.10.2012 nothing has happened. It is relevant to mention that
the constitution of the so-called SIT has not completed till date.
Though Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the
respondent State raised an objection as to the averments in
para 9 in I.A. No. 8 filed by the appellant-Association, it is clear
that in spite of the modified order of this Court, the
investigation is yet to commence due to non-formation of SIT.
11) As regards entrusting the investigation to the CBI, a
Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal and
Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 571 has laid down
10
certain principles. Though the CBI has issued various
principles/suggestions for endorsing the matter to CBI in para
68, it is worthwhile to refer the conclusion in paras 69 & 70.
"69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question
referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to
investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territory of a State without the consent
of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of
the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power
and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties
of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only
the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and
under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and
vigilantly.
70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any
order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The
very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires
great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing
a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down
to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but
time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not
to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party
has levelled some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or
where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases
and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its
credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."
Keeping the above principles in mind, considering the series of
unfortunate incidents which occurred within the City Civil Court
Complex, Bangalore on 02.03.2012 involving members of the
bar, police personnel, journalists and media persons and in spite
of the specific direction by the High Court as early as on
16.05.2012, subsequent order of this Court dated 19.10.2012,
and also of the fact that the composition of SIT itself has not
11
been finalized, we feel that the present case falls within the
principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench and we are
satisfied that CBI inquiry is necessitated in the matter in issue.
12) In the light of what is stated above, while setting
aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.05.2012
and in modification of earlier order of this Court dated
19.10.2012, we entrust the entire investigation of the incident
to the CBI. Accordingly, we direct the CBI to carry out the
investigation and submit a report before the appropriate Court
having jurisdiction at Bangalore within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. We further
direct the State/SIT to immediately hand over all the records
pertaining to the said investigation to the CBI."
The cases of these very petitioners were also before the CBI. The
petitioners called in question the action of the CBI in investigation
and filing its final report for the offences under Section 153A(1)(b)
of the IPC and Section 5 r/w 16 of the Act before this Court in
Criminal Petition No.6926 of 2015. The coordinate Bench of this
Court, in terms of its order dated 03-09-2019, allows the petition
with the following observations:
".... .... ....
3. The allegations against the present petitioners are that
accused No.2 Sri.M.S.Nagesh Gowda - Input Chief of TV9 news
channel, delegated Court Correspondent Sri Ramesha, Crime
Reporter Sri Ram Prasad and Bureau Chief H.V.Kiran (accused
No.3) to cover the news about the former Minister Sri.Gali
Janardhana Reddy who was to be produced at CBI Special Court
on that day. At about 11 a.m., the Bureau people informed
accused No.2 about the clashes taking place between the media
12
and advocates. The material allegation made against the
petitioners read as under:-
"At about 3.40 p.m. A-3 H.V.Kiran conveyed a false
news to A-2 Nagesh Gowda of A-1 Company to the effect that,
'Police Constable dead due to treatment failure. Police
Constable is dead. Constable Mahadevaiah is dead', fully
knowing it to be false. A-2, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy telecasted the said news item captioned 'BREAKING
NEWS'.
4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,
submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners do
not attract the ingredients of any of the above offences. Section
66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck off from the
statute as ultra vires of the Constitution by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC
1523. As such, charge under section 66A of Information
Technology Act, 2000 cannot stand against the petitioners.
(ii) Insofar as the offence under sections 5 read
with 16 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995 is concerned, the institution of the said proceedings
without compliance of section 18 of the same Act is
legally untenable.
(iii) Likewise, no prosecution could have been instituted
against the petitioners in respect of the alleged offences
punishable under section 153-A(1)(b) of IPC as well as the
conspiracy to commit the said offences in view of the bar
contained under section 196 of Cr.P.C., except with the previous
sanction of the Central Government or State Government.
(iv) In the instant case, none of these mandatory
requirements have been complied with by the prosecution. As a
result, learned Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance
of the alleged offences against the petitioners and hence, the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners being opposed to
law and abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent does not
dispute the legal position that in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal's case, referred supra,
charge under section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000
13
cannot be sustained. He also does not dispute the fact that the
mandatory requirements of section 18 of the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as well as requirements of
section 196 of Cr.P.C., have not been complied in the instant
case.
6. In view of this factual and legal position, the impugned
proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be
sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated by
respondent in C.C.No.173/2015 of CBI/SCB/Chennai on the file
of XVII ACMM, Special Court for CBI Cases, Bengaluru are
quashed insofar as the petitioners namely accused Nos.1, 2 and
3 are concerned. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to
proceed against the petitioners on the same cause of action,
after complying with the legal requirements in accordance with
law, if found necessary."
The order in question came to be passed in the year 2019, in
relation to an incident that traces its origin to as far back as
2012. Thereafter, an inexplicable and protracted silence
ensued, with the State Government remaining supine and
taking no discernible action for nearly eight long years. It
was only on 22-11-2023, after this inordinate lapse of time, that
the State Government stirred to issue an order, authorizing officers
of the CBI to institute a complaint before the jurisdictional
Magistrate. Acting upon such belated authorization, a complaint
eventually came to be lodged before the jurisdictional Magistrate on
26-07-2024. The complaint reads as follows:
14
".... .... ....
23. That, Shri M.S. Nagesh Gowda (A-2), Input Chief of TV-9
news channel detailed court correspondent Shri Ramesha,
Crime Reporters, Shri Ram Prasad and Bureau Chief Shri
H.V. Kiran (A-3) to cover the News about the former
Minister Gali Janardhana Reddy who was to be produced
at CBI Special Court on that day. At about 11 AM, the
bureau people informed A-2 about the clashes taking
place between the media and advocates. At about 3.40
p.m. A-3 H.V.Kiran conveyed a false news to A-2 Nagesh
Gowda of A-1 Company to the effect that, "Police
Constable dead due to treatment failure Police
Constable is dead Constable Mahadevaiah is dead",
fully knowing it to be false. A-2, in pursuance of the
criminal conspiracy telecasted the said news item
captioned "BREAKING NEWS".
24. That, Shri M.S. Nagesh Gowda (A-2), Input Chief of TV9
news channel, M/s TV9 Karnataka Private Limited (4-1),
represented by its authorized representative and Shri
H.V. Kiran (A-3), on 02-03-2012 entered into a criminal
conspiracy among themselves to cause escalation of
violence against Advocates of City Civil Court, Bangalore
with wantonly, with the view to disturb the public
tranquility, telecasted false and inflammatory news
regarding death of Police Constables in the assault
advocates, knowing fully well that such false news would
aggravate situation and escalate violence among
Policemen, which would result in jeopardy to public
tranquility.
25. The complainant finally submits that M/s TV9 Karnataka
Private Limited (A-1); Shri M.S. Nagesh Gowda (A-2) and
Shri H.V.Kiran (A-3) were party to the criminal
conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, they in the
after on 02-03-2012 had telecast false and
misleading information through their TV channels
to the effect that, few policemen have been killed in
the rioting, that was allegedly taking place in the
City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore and thus,
constitute commission of offence punishable under
15
Section 5 r/w 16 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulations) Act, 1995.
26. That, the authorization vide Government Order No.
KCI:PIF/40/2021 dated 22-11-2023 has been issued by
the Department of Kannada, Culture & Information,
Government of Karnataka authorizing the Central Bureau
of Investigation (not below the rank of PSI) to file the
complaint before the competent Court for the offences
under Section 5 r/w 16 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulations) Act, 1955 is enclosed along with the
complaint.
27. It is most humbly submitted that the CBI did not arrest
any of the accused persons mentioned in this complaint.
Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue process for securing these accused
persons for the purpose of trial.
27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take cognizance of the
case, issue summons and proceed against the accused
persons M/s. TV9 Karnataka Private Limited (A-1)
represented by Shri Mahendra Mishra, Shri M.S.Nagesh
Gowda (A-2) and Shri H.V.Kiran (A-3) in accordance with
law for the offences punishable under Section 5 r/w 16 of
Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995. Hence
this complaint.
Dated this the 26th day July, 2024."
The complaint, as observed, was filed on 26-07-2024. The
concerned Court takes cognizance of the complaint, registers a
criminal case and issues summons in C.C.No.13702 of 2025. The
order of the concerned Court reads as follows:
16
"ORDER
Perused the complaint filed u/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and
records produced along with the complaint.
2. It is submitted in the complaint that the case was
registered on 30.09.2013 in compliance of the order dated
27.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.7159/2013 arising out of SLP (C)No.22604/2012
which was filed by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru by the
registering the Halsurgate Police Station Cr.No.281/2012 in
respect to violent incident took place on 02.03.2012 at City Civil
Court premises Bengaluru. Further, it is stated that after
completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed for
the offence punishable u/Sec.120 B r/w 153 A (1) (b) of IPC,
Sec.66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 5 r/w
16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
against the accused persons and this Court has taken
cognizance for the said offences and registered the case in
C.C.No.173/2015. Further it is submitted that, during the trial,
the accused have challenged the proceedings in
C.C.No.173/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.6926/2015 and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order
dated 03.09.2019, quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.173/2015
on the ground that the Section 66A of I.T. Act, 2000 as struck
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and non compliance of
Sec.18 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and Sec.
196 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence punishable
u/Sec.16 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and
Section 153 A (1) (b) of IPC respectively. It is further submitted
that however, the Hon'ble High Court while quashing the
charges, gave liberty to CBI to proceed on same cause of action
after complying with the legal requirements in accordance with
law.
3. Further, it is submitted that, the authorization vide
Government Order No. KCI:PIF/40/2021, dated 22.11.2023 has
been issued by the department of Kannada, Culture and
Information, Government of Karnataka authorizing the CBI not
below the rank of PSI to file the complaint before the competent
Court for the offence punishable u/Sec. 5 r/w 16 of Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Hence, the Dy.S.P.
has filed this complaint.
17
4. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. reads as under -
A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint
shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be
reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and
the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate; Provided that, when
the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not
examine the complainant and the witnesses,
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the
complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or
trial to another Magistrate under section 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the
case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining
the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need
not re-examine them.
5. In view of Section 200 (a) of Cr.P.C., when the
complaint is made in writing by the public servant acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, the
Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the
witnesses.
6. In this case, the complainant is the public servant
acting in the discharge of his official duty has made the
complaint in writing. Hence, there is no need to examine the
complainant and the witnesses. Hence, examination of
complainant and the witnesses upon oath is dispensed with.
7. On perusal of the complaint, statements of the
witnesses and documents enclosed with the complaint, it reveals
that the accused No.1 is the M/s TV 9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by authorized representative, the accused No.2 is
the input chief of TV9 News Channel and Special correspondent
and accused No.3 principal correspondent of TV 9 Karnataka
Pvt. Ltd have telecasted the false and misleading information
through accused No.1 TV 9 Channel regarding the death of few
18
Policemen in rioting that was allegedly taken place in the City
Civil Court complex, Bengaluru, which constitute commission of
an offence punishable u/Sec.5 r/w 16 of the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
8. As per Section 17 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995, where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a Company, every person who, at the time
of the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of
the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence.
9. On perusal of the complaint and the materials available
on record, there is sufficient evidence, both oral and
documentary to prosecute the accused persons for the offences
punishable u/Sec.5 r/w 16 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995.
10. As per Section 18 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995, no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in
writing made by the authorized officer.
11. As per Section 2 (a) of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995, 'authorized officer' means, within his
local limits of jurisdiction, -
(i) a District Magistrate, or
(ii) a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or
(iii) a Commissioner of Police,
and includes any other officer notified in the Official Gazette, by
the Central Government or the State Government, to be an
authorized officer for such local limits of jurisdiction as may be
determined by that Government.
12. The document No.6 produced by the complainant
reveals that, the Government of Karnataka has passed the order
in KCI-PIF/40/2021, Bengaluru dated 22.11.2023 and
authorized the officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation not
19
below the rank of PSI to file the complaint before the competent
Court against the accused No.1 to 3 u/Sec.18 of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 for the offence
punishable u/Sec.5 of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995.
13. The document No.7 produced by the complainant
reveals that Gazette Notification made on 18.06.2024 to
investigate the offences punishable under the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and any attempt, abatement
and/or conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said
offence by the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment.
14. Hence, the Dy.S.P who is the authorized officer has
filed the complaint in writing before this Court.
15. Having perused the records, I am of the opinion that
at this stage the allegations made against accused persons are
prima facie constitute the offences punishable u/Sec.5 r/w 16 of
the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and there
is sufficient material to proceed against them for the above said
offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
Cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec.5 r/w 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 is taken against the accused No.1 to 3.
Office is directed to register the Criminal Case against accused No.1 to 3 in Criminal Register No.III.
Issue summons to accused No.1 to 3.
Call on 31.05.2025."
Issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court.
208. Of considerable significance is a legislative development that occurred in the interregnum, long before the subject complaint came to be registered: namely, an amendment to Section 16 of the Act, being the very provision under which the offence is alleged against the petitioner, among others. Section 16 of the Act prior to the amendment, reads as follows:
"CHAPTER IV OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
16. Punishment for contravention of provisions of this Act -- (1) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act shall be punishable,--
(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both;
(b) for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the contravention of section 4-A shall be a cognizable offence under this section."
Pre-amended Section 16 of the Act stipulated that any contravention of its provisions would attract penal consequences in the nature of imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, 21 or fine, or both. However, the legal landscape has since undergone a fundamental transformation, by virtue of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act"), Section 16 stands wholly decriminalized, recasting what was once a criminal offence into a purely civil infraction. The amended regime contemplates only regulatory consequences such as, issuance of an advisory, censure, warning, or the imposition of a monetary penalty. Clause 29 of the Schedule to the Amendment Act, which replaces Section 16 of the Act reads as follows:
"........ ........ ........
1. Short title and commencement.--(1) This Act may be called the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for amendments relating to different enactments mentioned in the Schedule.
2. Amendment of certain enactments.--The enactments mentioned in column (4) of the Schedule are hereby amended to the extent and in the manner mentioned in column (5) thereof.
........ ........ ........
22THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2) Sl. Year No. Short title Amendments No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ........ ........ ........
29. 1995 7 The Cable (A) For CHAPTER IV, the Television following CHAPTER shall be Networks substituted, namely:--
(Regulation) "CHAPTER IV Act, 1995 PENALTIES
16. Penalty for contravention of provisions of this Act.--(1) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act shall be liable,--
(a) for the first contravention with advisory, or censure, or warning, or a penalty which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) for every subsequent contravention within a period of three years, with advisory, or censure, or warning, or a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, by such designated officer, as may be prescribed.
(2) The designated officer, may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, impose penalty referred to in sub-
section (1):
Provided that in cases of more than three contraventions over a period of three years, the designated officer, in addition to penalty referred to in sub-section (1), may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, suspend or revoke the registration 23 granted:
Provided further that no order by the designated officer under this sub-section shall be made without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(3) Whoever aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (2), may prefer an appeal to the Secretary to the Government of India or such other officer authorised by him:
Provided that no such appeal shall be admissible after the expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of such order:
Provided further that an appeal may be entertained after the expiry of the period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.".
(B) In Section 22, in sub-section (2), after clause (da), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
"(db) the designated officer under sub-section (1) of Section 16;"."
Clause 29 of the Schedule to the Amendment Act, which substitutes Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, unequivocally embodies this legislative shift, replacing penal sanctions with a graded system of civil penalties administered by a designated officer. The inevitable consequence of this amendment is 24 that the element of criminality, which once inhered in Section 16, stands completely effaced.
9. Notwithstanding this clear legislative mandate, learned counsel for the respondents/CBI, Sri P Prasanna Kumar, has strenuously contended that the determinative point in time is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and not the subsequent statutory amendment--urging that the provision, as it stood then, must govern the field.
10. This submission, however, is fundamentally untenable. On the date of registration of the complaint, there existed no subsisting criminal offence under Section 16. A coordinate Bench, in Criminal Petition No. 6926 of 2015, had already quashed the proceedings, both on factual and legal grounds prevailing at the time. It was categorically held that, insofar as the offence under Section 5 read with Section 16 of the Act was concerned, the institution of proceedings without adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 18 was legally unsustainable. Equally, prosecution under Section 153A(1)(b) of the IPC for conspiracy to commit the said 25 offence was barred by virtue of Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., in the absence of prior sanction from the Central or State Government.
The coordinate Bench further underscored that none of the mandatory legal preconditions had been complied with by the prosecution. While disposing of the matter, liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh on the same cause of action, strictly in accordance with law and upon due compliance with statutory requirements, if they deemed it necessary. Strikingly, the State chose to act not within a reasonable timeframe - neither within months nor even a year -but after an inordinate lapse of eight years.
11. The chronology of events, when viewed in its entirety, unveils not merely delay, but a profound inertia that has eroded the very substratum of the prosecution.
What was once a live controversy has, through the passage of time and the evolution of law, been rendered a relic devoid of legal vitality. The liberty reserved by this Court in its earlier pronouncement was never intended to be an unbridled charter for resurrection of proceedings at the 26 whim of the State, long after the ambers of the cause had turned cold.
12. The State, having remained in a state of conspicuous dormancy for nearly eight years, now seeks to rekindle proceedings on the very same factual foundation -
untouched, unaltered, and unembellished by any fresh material. Such an attempt, in the considered view of this Court, is not the exercise of lawful liberty, but its distortion.
Liberty granted by a Court of law is a trust reposed in the prosecuting agency to act with diligence, promptitude, and fidelity to legal principles; it is not a license to awaken from slumber and set the criminal law in motion. More significantly, the legal landscape itself has undergone a transformation of decisive consequence. The offence alleged against the petitioners, once bearing the imprimatur of criminality, has since been denuded of its penal character by legislative intervention. The law, in its wisdom, has chosen to recast the alleged infraction as a civil transgression, thereby stripping it of the rigours of criminal prosecution. To 27 permit the continuation of criminal proceedings in the face of such a change would be to disregard not only the letter of the amended statute but also the spirit of fairness that animates criminal jurisprudence.
13. Jurisprudence is replete with the Apex Court holding that a subsequent amendment if it is granting benefit to an accused, it must be given retrospective effect. The Apex Court in T.BARAI v.
HENRY AH HOE1 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
22. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction 1 (1983) 1 SCC 177 28 requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The principle is based both on sound reason and common sense. This finds support in the following passage from Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn., at pp. 388-89:
"A retrospective statute is different from an ex post facto statute. "Every ex post facto law..."
said Chase, J., in the American case of Calder v. Bull [3 US (3 Dall) 386: 1 L Ed 648 (1798)] "must necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law.
Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive; it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect, but in cases in which the laws may justly and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals relate to a time antecedent to their commencement: as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigour of the criminal law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime, or increase the punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction.... There is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime.""
This judgment is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in A.K. SARKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL2 wherein it is held as follows:2
(2024) 10 SCC 727 29 ".... .... ....
11. Whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of the new legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law? This Court in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe [T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 143] , had held that when an amendment is beneficial to the accused it can be applied even to cases pending in courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. It was said as under : (SCC p. 191, para 22) "22. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The principle is based both on sound reason and common sense.""
The complaint, as it now stands, is but a mirror image of what once stood quashed - devoid of novelty, bereft of fresh substance, and burdened to an inordinate and unexplained delay. There exists no surviving nexus between the original 30 proceedings and the present attempt, no living link that would justify the revival of prosecution. The chain has long since been severed. The Apex Court in MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH3 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
30. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. .. ..."
The said principle is subsequently reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF W.B.4,wherein it is held as follows:
"........ ........ ........ 3 (2016) 9 SCC 1 4 (2023) 20 SCC 120 31
15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.
........ ........ ........
21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. [Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N., (2022) 15 SCC 164 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance) 32 In these circumstances, to compel the petitioner to stand trial would be to subject them to a process that has lost its legal moorings. The continuation of such proceedings would not advance the cause of justice; rather, it would subvert it. The criminal process solemn and serious as it is, cannot be permitted to degenerate into an instrument of oppression or a ritual devoid of purpose. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the proceedings in question, if allowed to continue would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law and would inevitably culminate in a miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Entire proceedings in C.C.No.13702 of 2025 pending before the XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru stands quashed.33
Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ