Karnataka High Court
The Editor, Deccan Herald vs Prof. M.S. Ramaraju on 1 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ2672, ILR2005KAR1907, 2005(3)KARLJ579, 2005 CRI. L. J. 2672, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1206, (2005) 31 ALLINDCAS 621 (KAR), (2005) ILR (KANT) 1907, (2005) 4 CURCRIR 25, (2005) 2 KCCR 1295, (2005) 3 ALLCRILR 276, (2005) 3 CRIMES 521, (2005) 3 KANT LJ 579
Author: V. Jagannathan
Bench: V. Jagannathan
JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan, J.
1. This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the VIII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C. No. 18468/2001 taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner herein and 19 others for the offence of defamation punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the I.P.C. The petitioner is Accused No. 20 in the said case before the learned Magistrate.
2. The facts in brief leading to this petition are that, the petitioner, being the Editor of Deccan Herald newspaper, Bangalore, published a news item bearing date 5.5.1999 (as per Annexure-B) to the effect that the Management of Sheshadripuram Law College had suspended the Principal and two other staff members as a sequel to an incident relating to the first year law student being caught red handed by the vigilance squad, while she was writing the examination at a lodge in Sheshadripuram. It is the petitioner's case that the Secretary of Sheshadripuram Education Trust, one Mr. Purushottam, sent a press report to all leading papers and T.V. channels to the effect that the Management had suspended Principal Ramaraju on charges of dereliction of duty. Based on the above said press release issued by the Secretary, the petitioner published a news item in Deccan Herald. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging that the accused persons, numbering 20, have defamed him, and the petitioner (Accused No. 20) had published the news item without verifying as to the correctness of the matter and the report published by the petitioner in the news paper has led to loss of reputation of the respondent.
3. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the respondent-complainant, passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. against A-1 to A-19, and under Section 501 of the I.P.C. against A-20 i.e., the petitioner herein. The Trial Court also directed issue of summons to all the accused.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all that the petitioner had done was just to publish the news item based on the report given by the Secretary of the Sheshadripuram Education Trust and nothing more. It was contended by the Learned Counsel that all that the news item mentioned was that the Management had suspended the Principal and two staff members and in the second paragraph of the said news item, it was only mentioned that the Management had suspended the Principal Ramaraju on charges of dereliction of duty.
6. Referring to the private complaint lodged by the respondent, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the private complaint, the respondent himself has admitted that on 5.5.1999, A-5 sent a press report to all the leading news papers, Udaya TV. News Agency and the Internet stating that the Management had suspended the Principal Ramaraju on charges of dereliction of duty. Further, the attention of the court was drawn to the sworn statement of the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein the respondent had admitted that the said news item also appeared in several leading news papers having circulation at Bangalore and all over the State. It was also submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that in the sworn statement, the respondent had clearly stated that the Secretary of A-1 Trust colluded with the police and got the name of the respondent included in the charge-sheet.
7. Referring to all the above averments in the private complaint as well as in the sworn statement, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the news item that was published was the factual one based on the report given by the Secretary of the Sheshadripuram Education Trust and absolutely there is no word spoken in the news item as regards any other thing.
8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, without verifying as to the correctness of the report alleged to have been given by the Secretary of the Trust, the petitioner had published the news item and, therefore, the matter squarely falls within the ambit of Section 501 of the I.P.C.
9. Having regard to the averments made by the respective sides and after a careful persusal of the entire papers placed before this court, the point that arises for consideration is whether this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
10. A bare perusal of the private complaint lodged by the respondent Principal and his sworn statement would make it clear that even according to the respondent, the Management of the Sheshadripuram Education Trust did suspend the respondent Principal and two other staffers. In the complaint itself, the respondent has stated that he was suspended by A-5 and it is also mentioned in the private complaint that A-5 had sent the press report stating that "the Management had suspended the Principal Ramaraju on charges of dereliction of duty". A perusal of the news item published by the petitioner discloses that all that the news item had reported was that the Management also suspended the Principal Ramaraju on charges of dereliction of duty. In other words, the publication of the news item is based on the report said to have been given by the Secretary of the Sheshadripuram Education Trust.
11. From the material on record placed at this stage, it is very difficult to take the view that the Editor of the news paper has had anything to do with the allegation that was made against the respondent by the Secretary of the Education Trust.
12. It appears that all that the petitioner had done was, he published the report that was given by the Secretary of the Trust and in the absence of any allegation having been made in the said news item against the respondent by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the publication of the said news item brings the case within the ambit of Section 499/501 of the I.P.C.
13. As regards the power of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is a settled law that the said power could be exercised sparingly that too in rarest of rare cases. At the same time, it is also well settled that, where the allegation in the complaint, even taken on its face value in its entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, then, in such a case, the High Court may exercise the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
14. It is also necessary to mention at this juncture that the news papers do have legal, moral and social duties to perform and if what is published is in the public interest or for public good, and is based on factual report, it would be extremely difficult to say that even such publication made in good faith attracts the offences under Sections 499 and 501 of the I.P.C.
15. In the light of the foregoing reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that interference is called for and issuance of process against the petitioner (A-20) is liable to be quashed. However, it is made clear that whatever has been stated above, should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The Criminal Petition is, therefore, allowed and issuance of process against the petitioner, by the learned VIII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C No. 18468/2001 is quashed.