Karnataka High Court
Mr Aroon Purie vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3869 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MR. AROON PURIE
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
SON OF LATE SHRI V.V. PURIE,
CHAIRMAN AND EDITOR IN CHIEF OF
T V TODAY NETWORK LTD.,
RESIDING AT NO.6, PALAM MARG,
VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057.
2. MR. RAJDEEP SARDESAI
SON OF LATE SRI DILEEP SARDESAI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT N-52, PANCHSHEEL PARK,
NEW DELHI-110017.
3. MR. SHIV AROOR
SON OF SRI. P.R. AROOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1452,
ATS VILLAGE, SECTOR 93A,
NOIDA-201301.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
DR. PUNEET JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SON OF MR. R.S. JAIN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER NO.1;
2
SRI. HRISHIKESH BARUAH, ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SRI. B.
PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MR. B.R. PATIL
SON OF SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA M PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
KARNATAKA STATE
(ALAND CONSTITUENCY),
RESIDING AT NO.17, FLAT NO.7,
NANDINI ENCLAVE, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BHOOPASANDRA NEW LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
CRIME BEARING NO.92/2016 IN HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 22.09.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioners who were arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed this petition challenging the registration of First Information Report in Cr.No.92/2016 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468, 153A, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending consideration before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
2. The respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.92/2016 on the basis of information in writing provided by the respondent No.2 on 07.06.2016 alleging commission of cognizable offences. The respondent No.2 claimed that he was a member of the Legislative Assembly from Aland constituency, Karnataka. He claimed that on 27.05.2016, he was invited by the National General Secretary of Janathdal (S) to a hotel - Lalit Ashok, Bengaluru for a cup of tea. He went there along with a Delhi based friend - Mr. Vijay Pratapji. He claimed that he, Mr. Vijay Pratapji, the General Secretary, Mr. Syed Mudeer 4 Agha and two party workers joined them at Lalit Ashok. He claimed that he met his friend Mr. Srikant, a Senior Journalist who had incidentally gone there. At about 07:00 p.m., all of them went to room No.409 at Lalit Ashok hotel which was allotted to Mr.Danish Ali. When they were in the room, two persons went there to meet Mr.Danish Ali. The respondent No.2 claimed that he had a casual chat with all of them and thereafter, he and others left the room. On 02.06.2016, at about 4:30 p.m., the respondent No.2 allegedly received a call from one of his friends, who informed that some discussions were telecast on 'India Today' news channel. When the respondent No.2 switched on the television, and tuned into the channel, he was shocked to notice that under the guise of a sting operation, nasty, reckless and frivolous allegations were made against him by the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.3. Subsequently, the petitioner No.2 repeated the same programme on 'Times Now' news channel on the same evening. Both the channels showed the visuals purporting to have been recorded by a secret camera at hotel Lalit Ashok, where the respondent No.2 was projected as a corrupt politician. The 5 programmes were telecast and re-telecast under the following caption namely, "Seats for sale - 2 candidates and three MLA stung" - Times Now. "The Rajya Sabha Bazaar" - India today.
3. The respondent No.2 claimed that no discussion as projected in the programme took place, but on the contrary, it was a general discussion. He claimed that since the sting operation failed miserably, the accused maliciously fabricated and concocted visual graphics and audio and named it as sting operation and clandestinely telecast it. He alleged that Mr.Arnab Goswami, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have made nasty remarks and observations about his character, with the sole object to cause annoyance to him and mar his political career, in view of the elections to the Rajya Sabha that was scheduled on 11.06.2016. He therefore alleged that all the accused had conspired to malign his political career by spreading false propaganda and to cause hatred amongst public and also to wrongfully gain from such acts. He alleged that guidelines are prescribed by News Broadcasting Standards Authority for conducting sting operation, which was violated with impunity, 6 as there was no public interest involved. He claimed that Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, mandates that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service, any programme unless it is in conformity with the prescribed program code. He claimed that under Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, any programme containing anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive of half innuendos, and half truths which criticises maligns or slanders any individual, in person or certain groups or segments or social publics and moral life etc., is prohibited. He claimed that the act of doctoring the graphics and using his picture and telecasting it, violated various provisions of the penal law and invaded his privacy. He alleged that the accused No.2 being the Editor in Chief and Chairman of 'India Today' news channel is responsible for permitting telecasting of such an objectionable material. He therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated against the accused. Being aggrieved by the First Information registered, the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed this petition. 7
4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the Editor in Chief of TV Today Network Limited. He contended that the accused No.2 is sought to be involved in the investigation though there is no allegation against the accused No.2. He submits that unless there is a clear averment that the accused No.2 was involved in the commission of offence, he cannot be vicariously proceeded against. He submitted that the respondent No.1 has registered a case for commission of offences under Sections 417, 420, 468, 153A and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, though reading of the entire complaint does not disclose the commission of the said offences. Thus, he contended that the accused No.2 cannot be vicariously held liable for any offence not committed by him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 contended that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true, an offence under Sections 417, 420 or 468 of IPC is not made out against the accused. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the 8 High Court of Delhi in the case of Anil Sharma and others Vs. S.N.Marwaha and Another - 1994 (30) DRJ, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Others Vs. NIMRA Cerglass Technics Private Limited and Another - 2016(1) SCC 348. He therefore contended that the case registered by the respondent No.1 is a clear abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, in support of his claim, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and others - 2009(7) SCC 712. He contended that unless there was material to show that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were liable for the alleged criminal acts, they cannot be held vicariously liable. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Kalyani Vs. Janak C.Mehta & Ors. - 2009(1) SCC 516, Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. - 2008 (5) SCC 668 and Ravindranatha Bajpe Vs. Mangalore Special Economic 9 Zone Ltd. & Ors. - 2021 (V) SLT 755. He submitted that the petitioners being the members of a free press, are entitled to publish acts or conduct of public officials in discharge of their official duty, unless it is shown that such publication is made in reckless disregard for truth. He contended that following the news paper reports, the Election Commission of India had passed an order dated 09.06.2016, and directed the Returning Officer for the elections to Rajya Sabha to file a complaint against the members of the Legislative Assembly and others involved. He therefore contends that the action of the petitioners in publishing the news item is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 1994(6) SCC 632.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have unduly rushed to this Court without even awaiting an investigation to be concluded. He submitted that a perusal of the programme telecast would show that the respondent No.2 was not involved in any 10 discussion relating to the elections to the Rajya Sabha. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 is shown in bad light along with those who were accused of collecting money for votes. He submitted that there is not even a shred of evidence against the respondent No.2 to justify the allegation that he had made any demand for casting his vote in favour of any candidate. However, the way in which, the respondent No.2 was portrayed in the programme, gave an impression to the viewing general public that the respondent No.2 was involved in the said offence. He submitted that the accused are all on bail and therefore, this Court should be slow in interfering with the investigation of the case. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - Crl. A. No.330/2021 dated 13.04.2021. He submitted that the Apex Court while considering the purport of a sting operation in the case of Rajat Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2014) 6 SCC 495 held at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 as follows:
11
18. Thus, sting operations conducted by the law-
enforcement agencies themselves in the above jurisdictions have not been recognised as absolute principles of crime detection and proof of criminal acts. Such operations by the enforcement agencies are yet to be experimented and tested in India and legal acceptance thereof by our legal system is yet to be answered. Nonetheless, the question that arises in the present case is what would be the position of such operations if conducted not by a State agency but by a private individual and the liability, not of the principal offender honeytrapped into committing the crime, but that of the sting operator who had stained his own hands while entrapping what he considers to be the main crime and the main offender. Should such an individual i.e. the sting operator be held to be criminally liable for commission of the offence that is inherent and inseparable from the process by which commission of another offence is sought to be established? Should the commission of the first offence be understood to be obliterated and extinguished in the face of claims of larger public interest that the sting operator seeks to make, namely, to expose the main offender of a serious crime injurious to 12 public interest? Can the commission of the initial offence by the sting operator be understood to be without any criminal intent and only to facilitate the commission of the other offence by the "main culprit" and its exposure before the public? These are some of the ancillary questions that arise for our answer in the present appeals and that too at the threshold of the prosecution i.e. before the commencement of the trial.
19. The answer to the above, in our considered view would depend, as in any criminal case, on the facts and circumstances thereof. A crime does not stand obliterated or extinguished merely because its commission is claimed to be in public interest. Any such principle would be abhorrent to our criminal jurisprudence. At the same time the criminal intent behind the commission of the act which is alleged to have occasioned the crime will have to be established before the liability of the person charged with the commission of crime can be adjudged. The doctrine of mens rea, though a salient feature of the Indian criminal justice system, finds expression in different statutory provisions requiring proof of either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. Such proof 13 is to be gathered from the surrounding facts established by the evidence and materials before the court and not by a process of probe of the mental state of the accused which the law does not contemplate. The offence of abetment defined by Section 107 IPC or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC would, thus, require criminal intent on the part of the offender like any other offence. Both the offences would require existence of a culpable mental state which is a matter of proof from the surrounding facts established by the materials on record. Therefore, whether the commission of an offence under Section 12 of the PC Act read with Section 120-B IPC had been occasioned by the acts attributed to the appellant-accused or not, ideally, is a matter that can be determined only after the evidence in the case is recorded."
He therefore contends that the freedom of expression cannot be stretched beyond the limits of decency, as that would infringe the individual private right of the persons such as the respondent No.2. He also relied upon a judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of Courts On its Own Motion Vs. State - 2008 (100) DRJ 144 where it was held:
14
"17. There is no doubt and there is no second opinion that "truth" is required to be shown to the public in public interest and the same can be shown whether in the nature of sting operation or otherwise but what we feel is that entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and should not be permitted. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on 6th April, 1992 titled Keith Jacobson v. United States, 503 US
540. In the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in their zeal to enforce law, law protectors must not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind a disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute. Where the government or their agents induce an individual to break the law and the defence of entrapment is at issue, the prosecution must meet and answer by establishing and answering beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. The 15 Supreme Court of the United States has also declared that law enforcement officials go too far when they implant in the mind of an innocent person a disposition to commit an offence and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute. The Court held in very unambiguous terms that the Government should not play on the weakness of an innocent party and beguile the party into committing a crime which the party otherwise would not have attempted. While artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those who are engaged in criminal enterprises, there would be a need to prove that the person in question had a predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies. The Government must not punish an individual "for an alleged offence which is the produce because of the creative activity of its own officials". Ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States is in our considered opinion can be applied to the instant context also i.e. to the media."16
7. He also referred to another judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of Tarun J. Tejpal & Anr. Vs. Jayalakshmi Jaitly & Anr. - ILR (2008) 1 Delhi 35 and contended that it is the duty of the media to ensure proper investigation before a programme is aired. He contended that if the freedom of speech to expose the corruption of public officials is their right, it is also their duty to ensure that the news is based on proper investigation and verification and the publication is not aimed at sensational journalism. He contended that even if what is said is the truth, bonafide, still the defamatory action cannot be avoided, as it is for the person publishing, who has to establish before the Court that he has done all due diligence required before publishing it. He also referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI - 2008 SCC Online Del 711 which also related to a case of sting operation, where the Court held that though the freedom of press is a special right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be neglected and the accountability is the sina qua non. Thus, he 17 contends that greater power comes with greater responsibility and the petitioners being in-charge of National Media, were bound to be more cautious while dealing with high dignitaries such as the respondent No.2. He therefore, contended that the petitioners are bound to cooperate in the investigation of the offence and this Court should not exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. He submits that the respondent No.2 who is the victim of yellow journalism by the petitioners, would be deprived of his right to ensure that his tormentors are punished.
8. In order to verify the contents of the programme that was telecast on India Today and Times Now news channels, this Court secured the compact disc containing the video recording of the programme, which was played in the Court. After viewing it, this Court felt that image of the respondent No.2 was unnecessarily shown along with some members of Legislative Assembly who were allegedly involved in the cash for votes scam, which the petitioners tried to uncover through a sting operation. The entire videograph does 18 not disclose that the respondent No.2 had even whispered that he would cast his vote for cash. On the contrary, the audio track, disclosed that the respondent No.2 was discussing about the on going cricket match in Bengaluru. It is therefore, clear that the image of the respondent No.2 was shown inappropriately in the news article that was published by the petitioners.
9. The case in Cr.No.92/2016 is registered by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468, 153A and 120B read with 34 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A perusal of the information by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 does not disclose any allegation, that is sufficient enough to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. It is also evident that there are no allegations to constitute an offence under Section 468 of IPC. However, since it is alleged that the petitioners have doctored the graphics and have telecasted the same making derogatory remarks against the respondent No.2, an offence of making a false electronic 19 record to harm the reputation of the respondent No.2 cannot be ruled out, which is punishable under Section 469 of IPC. The question whether the petitioners had any intention to harm the reputation of the respondent No.2 or not, and whether the petitioners had any justification for publishing the article against the respondent No.2 or not are all matters that have to be ascertained during the course of investigation. Therefore the petitioners cannot contend at this stage, that no offence is made out against them.
10. It is well settled that a complaint need not set out the full particulars of an offence and all that is required is to broadly inform the commission of a cognizable offence to the nearest police station and upon receipt of such information, the police would consider whether such information constitutes a cognizable offence or not and if yes, the investigation would ensue. In this regard it is profitable to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 372 where it is held as follows:
20
"Stated briefly, the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it were an "encyclopedia" of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the overt acts therein. Non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal."
11. In so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, he claims to be the Chairman and Editor of TV Today Network Limited. Though there is no vicarious liability, when it comes to an offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal code, yet, the question whether the petitioner No.1 had prior information about the intended sting operation and the telecast of the incriminating programme against the respondent No.2, is 21 a fact that has to be investigated by the jurisdictional police. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner No.1 is now aged nearly 78 years, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 not to insist the personal presence of petitioner No.1 for the investigation, unless, his role in the sting operation and the consequent telecast of the programme is established.
12. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. However, the respondent No.1 is directed not to insist the personal presence of petitioner No.1 until the respondent No.1 unearths any corroborative material from the other accused that the petitioner No.1 was aware of the offences that were committed by the other accused.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ