Karnataka High Court
Rohini Seetaram vs M P Noronha (Melwyn Prakash Noronha) on 13 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2728 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. ROHINI SEETARAM
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD.,
400-C, INDUSTRIAL AREA
BAIKAMPADI
MANGALORE - 575011
2. B.V.SEETARAM
S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR
CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD.,
400-C, INDUSTRIAL AREA
BAIKAMPADI
MANGALORE - 575011
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M.P.NORONHA (MELWYN PRAKASH NORONHA)
S/O J.M.NORONHA
AGED 49 YEARS
ADVOCATE AND NOTARY
II FLOOR, ROYAL CHAMBERS
2
KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE - 575003
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN PCR NO.51/2014 NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.3901/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC-II COURT,
MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384, 385, 389, 500, 501,
506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners claimed to be the owners of Chitra Publications Limited, which owns newspaper named "Karavali Ale" are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in PCR No.51/2014, now numbered as C.C.No.3901/2016 pending on the file of the learned JMFC II Court, Mangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 389, 500, 501 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
3
2. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The prosecution case is that petitioners and others accused persons have made false publications against respondent - complainant. The complainant has further alleged that person representing accused demanded huge money from complainant. It is further alleged that publications were made in order to put fear in respondent's mind and pressurise him to give favorable opinion to his client - Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society to settle the case as proposed by accused No.5.
3. The present petitioners have filed captioned writ petition by contending that they are falsely implicated and they have nothing to do with publications. Therefore, proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that initiation and continuation of the proceedings insofar as petitioners are concerned is nothing but abuse of process of law.
4
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that as per Sections 3 and 5 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, every newspaper shall contain the names of the Printer, Publisher, Editor and owner and as per Section 7, for any legal proceedings whether civil or criminal declaration or copy of news paper containing name of editor, printer and publisher shall be held to be sufficient evidence who can be sued, if necessary or can sue and the presumption under Section 7 of Press Act can be drawn only against the Editor of the Newspaper and not owners and other Managing Directors or Chief Editors of the News Paper. Referring to the averments made in the complaint, he would vehemently argue and contend that there are absolutely no allegations in the complaint against the petitioners indicating that they had control and selection of the news article, which is published in the Newspaper. He would further point out that general 5 accusations against the petitioners are not sufficient to hold that they have actually controlled the selection of news article.
5. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments.
1. K.M.MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHER, MANU/SC/0434/1992.
2. PRABHU CHAWLA AND ORS VS. A U SHERIFF, 1995 CRI.L.J.1922.
3. B.V.SEETARAM AND ANOTHER VS.
KRISHNA J PALEMAR, ILR 2017 KAR 669.
4. PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ORS VS. STATE OF U.P., (2015)6 SCC 287.
6. Referring to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M.MATHEW's case, he would contend that in absence of such specific allegations, the Apex Court has held that the Chief Editor cannot be proceeded with. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of PRABHU CHAWLA AND OTHERS VS. A U SHERIFF (cited above). Referring to the said judgment, he would point out 6 that presumption under Section 7 is only against the person whose name is printed as an Editor as required under Section 5(1) of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'the Act'). Placing reliance on the said judgment, he would contend that the said Act does not recognize any legal entity for raising presumption. He would further point that even if the name of Chief Editor is printed in the news paper, there is no presumption against him. Referring to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of B.V.SEETARAM AND ANOTHER VS. KRISHNA J PALEMAR (cited above), he would vehemently argue and contend that it is only the Editor against whom the offences under Section 438, 499 and 500 of Cr.P.C can be proceeded. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in CRL.MC No.8/2020 and connected matters. Referring to the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court, he would vehemently argue and contend that Kerala High Court while declining to endorse the observations made by the Kerala High Court in 7 MAMMOTTI V. RAJAJI MATHEW THOMAS1, has referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in K.M.Mathew's case (supra), MAKSUD SAIYED V. STATE OF GUJRAT AND OTHERS2, RADHEY SHYAM KHEMKA VS. STATE OF BIHAR and SMS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. NEETA BHALLA AND OTHERS3. The Kerala High Court in the case of Aroon Purie has held that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a person on the basis of vicarious liability unless statue specifically provides for the same. Therefore, referring to the judgments rendered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Aroon Purie, he would point out that the principles laid down therein are squarely applicable to the present case on hand and even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted, he would contend that no offence is made against petitioners. In absence of positive averments in the complaint in regard to the knowledge of objectionable Article, which was published at the instance of 1 2006 (3) KLT 335 2 (2008) 5 SCC 668 3 AIR 2005 SC 2512 8 Editor and the present petitioners being the Directors have absolutely no role in publications of the Article. Therefore, he would request this Court to quash the proceedings.
7. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent - complainant however would counter arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Repelling his contentions, he would straight away place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. ABDULLA KHAN VS. PRAKASH K4. Countering the claim of the petitioners that the Directors cannot be vicariously held liable for the publication of an article, he has taken this Court to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHD. ABDULLA KHAN (supra). Referring to para Nos.21 and 22, he would contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the law laid down in K.M.Mathew case has held that judgment rendered in K.M.Mathew case has nothing to do with 4 (2018) 1 SCC 615 9 question of vicarious liability. The controversy involved in the case of K.M.Mathew is as to whether in view of Section 7 of the Act, only Editor of Newspaper can be prosecuted for defamation. While interpreting Section 7 of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that Section 7 does not create any immunity in favour of persons other than the Editor of a Newspaper. It only creates a rebuttable presumption that the person, whose name is shown as the Editor of the Newspaper, is responsible for the choice and publication of the material in the Newspaper and reliance is placed on para Nos.25 and 26 of the said judgment. Referring to these paragraphs, he would point out that whether owner or a Director is also responsible for publication of Article and therefore, the guilty of offence under Section 482 Cr.P.C is a matter to be tested during trial. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMVEER UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) 10 NO.2953 OF 2022. Referring to the principles therein, he would point out when there is a sufficient prima-facie materials against accused, the High Court should not venture into quashing the proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Complainant.
9. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and therefore, petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged defamatory materials, which are the subject matter of the present criminal complaint. Now, let me examine the allegations made in the complaint. It would be useful for this Court to refer to the 11 allegations made in the para No.4 and para No.11 of the complaint, the same are culled out as under.
"4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are the editors/Printers/Publisher/owners of the Daily Kannada News Paper Karavali Ale. Accused No.1 is the editor of Karavali Ale. Chitra Publication Pviate Ltd is the owner and publisher of the Karavali Ale newspaper. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director and accused No.3 is the active direct of Chitra Publication Private Ltd. Earlier accused No.3 was the Editor and Publisher of Karavali Ale. However since number of cases were filed against him, now he is representing that he is the only Director. Factually entire Karavali Ale newspaper and Chitra Publication Private Ltd is being managed by accused No.3. This printed newspaper is having wide circulations in the coastal region of Karnataka. It is being published from Mangalore and Karwar. Apart from the same, it is being published through electronic media. It is being widely circulated as E-paper and throughout the world lakhs of people are reading the same. Accused No.4 is the printer. Its owner/person in charged requires to be 12 investigated by the police wile enquiring into this matter. Complainant is not aware of the name of the owner or the person in charge of accused No.4. It is publishing printed news as well as E-paper News in internet as Epaper.Karavali.Ale.Net. Said Karavali Ale newspaper is well known for Yellow Journalism and is having several cases against it. That the accused Nos.1 to 4 have been indulging in yellow journalism by publishing false stories under sensational headlines only to increase its readership and its sale. That the accused No.1 to 4 have totally misused the freedom of expression given to the press and have been using their newspaper as a tool to extort and extract money."
11. It appears that on 26th June 2012 Mr.John Baptist Lewis had lodged a complaint to the Police in respect of an alleged incident dated 26.06.2014. When the enquiry was pending before the Police and the Police were investigating into the matter, 5th accused all of a sudden interfered, with the active support of accused Nos.1 to 4 and few others so as to once again trying to come to the limelight by taking undue advantage of the 13 situation and thereby unnecessarily interfered in the matter by giving false statements to the media with his photographs. Statement given to the media by the 5th accused are against the statements given by John Baptist Lewis in the said Police case. Thereafter the Complainant was shocked to hear from several people that complainant's name is also being dragged into the controversy and that 5th accused has given a letter to the Commissioner of Police alleging that the Complainant was also present along with the Rector Denzil Lobo when the premises was allegedly demolished as if 5th accused had seen the alleged incident, although accused is aware that complainant was not at the site at the time of alleged incident and even FIR did not disclose his name. The Complainant is totally shocked at the false statements given by 5th accused. All the accused with the common intention of maliciously defaming the complainant and extorting money from the complainant have published false news from time to time."
14
10. On bare reading of these two paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged in the captioned criminal petition cannot be entertained. The allegations made at para Nos.4 and 11 clearly indicates that specific allegations are made against the petitioners. There are specific allegations that the accused No.2 is the Managing Director and accused No.3 is the Active Director of the Chitra Publications Private Limited. There are specific allegations that these two petitioners, more particularly accused No.3 was the Editor and Publisher of the Karavali Ale. Since several cases are filed against petitioners, they are now representing the Chitra Publication Private Limited as a Director. Therefore, on examining the allegations in the complaint as indicated at para Nos.4 and 11, I would find specific allegations are made even against the present petitioners. If there are prima-facie materials against the petitioners, then the complainant deserves a fair opportunity to substantiate and prove his allegations and therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere and 15 quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If the allegations made at para Nos.4 and 11 are taken cognizance of, then this Court is of the view that there are specific and clear allegations even against the petitioners and therefore, whether petitioners, who are the Directors of Chitra Publication Private Limited, which owns the Newspaper, were also directly involved and had a control and knowledge of publication of the Article is purely subject matter of Trial and therefore, complainant is entitled to proceed against the petitioners also and the question as to whether the present petitioners, who are the Directors, are also liable for defamatory materials carried by its Newspaper is a question to be tested by a full fledged Trial. Therefore, I am not inclined to examine the veracity of specific allegations made against the petitioners as indicated at para Nos.4 and 11 of the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners have to face Trial and the burden is on the 16 complainant to prove the offences against the petitioners and other accused.
No case is made out.
The criminal petition is dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM