in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1836/2016 BETWEEN:
The Editor, E TV News Kannada Channel, No.9/7, K.C.N. Bhavana, Yamuna Bai Road, Madavanagar, Bangalore – 560 001.
Now at Silver Jubilee Complex, CSI Compound 4th Floor, Mission Road, Bangalore – 27. Represented by Mr.Ranganath Bharadwaj, The Editor (By Smt. P.V.Kalpana, Advocate) AND:
1. Dr.Premakumari N., W/o Dr.Nagaraju K.H., Aged about 44 years, R/a Huliyar Village and Hobli, C.N.Taluk.
2. Smt.Pushpavathi, W/o Umesh, Aged about 29 years, R/a Banashankari Extension, ... Petitioner Basaveshwara Nagar, C.N.Hally Town, Tumkur District.
3. Chief Editor, Suvarna News Channel, No.36, Cresent Road, Oppo. Mallige Hospital, Near Shivananda Circle, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. Chief Editor, Samaya News Channel, No.10/A, 5th Floor, Chandrakirana Building, Kasturaba Road, Opp. Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore – 560 001.
5. Chief Editor, TV 9 News Kannada Channel, No.13/1, Rhenius Street, Richmond Town, Opp. Hochey Stadium, Bangalore – 560 025.
6. Chief Editor, Kasturi News Kannada Channel, No.12 & 12/1, Josco Jewellery Building, Kasturaba Road, Opp. Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore – 560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri.C.S.Madhu, Advocate for R1 Notice to R2 to R6 dispensed with vide order dated 11.03.2016) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, C.N.Hally in PCR No.25/2015 in so far as the petitioner/accused No.5 pending in C.C.No.397/2015 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakana Hally.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahally, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 196 and 500 of Indian Penal Code and has issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner herein is shown as accused No.5.
2. In the private complaint filed by respondent No.1/Dr. Premakumari N., it is alleged that even though she did not treat accused No.1 for pregnancy, a false publication was made by the petitioner and other TV Channels stating that by falsely making accused No.1. to believe that she is pregnant, complainant/ respondent No.1 and others cheated accused No.1. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant/respondent No.1 and considering the documents produced by her, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of the offences under Sections 196 and 500 IPC and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 7.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner to bring home the guilt for the alleged offences. There are no materials to connect the petitioner to the alleged offences. The petitioner has not published any defamatory statement relating to respondent No.1-complainant and hence, the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned order contending that on considering the prima-facie material produced by the complainant in proof of the commission of the above offence, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences and the said order does not suffer from any error on infirmity and thus, seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. A reading of the complaint discloses specific allegations against the petitioner as well as the editors of other news channels that even though accused No.1 did not take any treatment for pregnancy from the complainant-respondent No.1 at Government Hospital for about 9 to 10 months prior to 19.11.2014, without any basis a false imputation has been made against the petitioner alleging that the complainant made accused No.1 to believe that she was pregnant and thereby cheated her. These allegations in my opinion, squarely attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 500 of IPC. However, insofar as the offence under Section 196 of IPC is concerned, the allegations pertaining to the said offence are directed only against accused No.1 and her husband. There are no allegations in the complaint or in the sworn statement of the complainant that the petitioner herein was instrumental in creating the medical records relating to the alleged treatment given to accused No.1. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 196 of IPC is without any basis and is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., C.N. Hally in P.C.R. No.25/2015 pending in C.C. No.397/2015 is quashed only insofar as taking cognizance of the offence under Section 196 of IPC against the petitioner namely accused No.5 is concerned. The trial Court shall proceed against the petitioner-
accused No.5 only for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
8. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek his discharge on such grounds available under law before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV/BS