IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4980 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. B.V. SEETARAM S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD., 400-C, INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADI, MANGALORE-575 011 2. ROHINI SEETARAM MANAING DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD., 400-C, INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADI, MANGALORE-575 011 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.S.N. KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
USMAN.N.B.
S/O LATE B.K. IBRAHIM AGED 41 YEARS CIVIL ENGINEER R/AT BAITHUL FATIMA SITE NO 25, ANGARAGUNDI BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE-575 011 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.64/12, NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.1361/12 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC-III COURT, MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 500, 501, 502 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri.Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate for respondents.
2. The first petitioner is the Chairman and second petitioner is the Managing Director of Chitra Publications Private Limited. The respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No.64/2012 alleging inter alia that several articles in a newspaper called “Karavali Ale” contained derogatory news items touching upon the reputation of complainant’s brother N.B.Aboobaker. After considering the complaint, sworn statement and other materials on record, the learned Magistrate directed to register Criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process. The petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court.
3. Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned Advocate arguing for the petitioners submitted that under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1957 (‘Act’ for short), the publisher is required to print the name of the printing press, place of printing, name of publisher and name of publication. It is submitted that under Section 7 of the Act, office copy of declaration shall be treated as prima facie evidence in any legal proceedings against person whose name shall be subscribed in such declaration. Adverting to document No.11, it is submitted that the said document is the declaration filed under Section 3. The said form discloses the names of publisher, printer, place of publication, name of the printing press, name of the Editor and name of the owners. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another [AIR 1992 SC 2206] and a decision of this Court in Criminal petition No.6709/2016 decided on 14.12.2016 (B.V.Seetaram and Others Vs. Krishna J.Palemar), she submitted that this Court has held that publisher or the owner of the publishing company would not involve in day to day edition of the newspaper and control its contents.
4. In substance, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that petitioners herein being the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company are the owners and not involved in day to day edition of newspaper and they do not control the contents. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing this petition. She further submitted that the complaint by respondent is not maintainable in view of Section 199 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as it is averred by the complainant that to harm and lower the reputation of his brother and his family, such derogative articles have been published.
5. Shri.K.Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that Section 199 Cr.P.C. is applicable to the facts of this case because the caption of article reads as “Hanging slaughtered cattle head in BJP Aboobakar’s land”. Therefore, the complainant is also an aggrieved person.
6. Rebutting the said contention, it is submitted that though the caption reads as aforesaid, the name of Aboobakar’s brother has been mentioned as ‘Umarabba’. Therefore, complainant being one Mr.Usman N.B. cannot be considered as an aggrieved person.
7. Undisputable facts of the case are, petitioners are Chairman and Managing Director of the publishing house respectively. In K.M.Mathew’s case, the Supreme Court of India has held that to take cognizance of the offence, there must be positive averments in the complaint.
8. In B.V.Seetharam’s case, this Court has held as follows:
“12. Similarly, in so far as the decision of yet another learned Single Judge in Crl. P. No.5873/2012 dated 19.10.2012, it is noticed that it is a cryptic order without any reference to the provisions of the PRB Act, or the case law. Hence, it may safely be said that the very idea of naming the Editor of a newspaper publication is to hold him responsible for its contents. In other words, the publisher or the owner of publishing company would not normally be expected to be involved in the day to day edition of the newspaper or in controlling its contents.”
(Emphasis supplied) 9. In the light of the undisputed fact that petitioners are not involved with the day to day edition of newspaper and controlling of its contents following the decision of this Court in B.V.Seetharam’s case, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed.
10. The Criminal proceeding in C.C. No.1361/2012 on the file of J.M.F.C.-III Court, Mangalore is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SPS