IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8464/2015 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Venkataramareddy, Chairman of the Board, Deccan Chronicle Holding Ltd., 36, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 003.
2. Ms. A.T. Jayanti, Editor, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd., 36, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 003.
3. Mr. O. Thomas, Printer and Publisher, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd., 36, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 003. …Petitioners (By Sri. N.R. Girisha, Advocate) AND:
Mr. Khazia Mohammed Muzzmmil, S/o. late Mohiddin Khazia, Major, R/at No.177, 2nd Cross, 4th Main, Viveknagar, Bengaluru – 560 047. ...Respondent (By Sri. Mohd. Usman Shaikh, Advocate) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.22466/2011 on the file of 10th ACMM at Bengaluru and also the private complaint in PCR No.54/2008 filed by the respondent insofar as it relates the petitioner.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.22466/2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, respectively. The case of the complainant is that petitioners herein published a false and defamatory article in ‘Deccan Chronicle’ dated 08.08.2007 captioned ‘Was Kafeel’s family part of Bhatkal riots?’. Petitioner No.1 is sought to be prosecuted in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and petitioner No.2 as the Editor and petitioner No.3 as the Printer and Publisher of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submitted that the news item was published based on the internal investigation and therefore, the said news item does not fall within the ambit of Section 499 of IPC. Further, he has pointed out that news was published on 08.08.2007 and the complaint was filed on 07.08.2008 and the cognizance of the alleged offences were taken only on 30.11.2010, beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and on these grounds petitioners have sought to quash the impugned proceedings.
4. Repelling the contentions, learned counsel for contesting respondent has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in JAPANI SAHOO Vs.
CHANDRASEKHAR MOHANTY (CRL.A.No.942/2007) reported in AIR 2007 SC 2762 and has emphasized that for the purpose of deciding the period of limitation, the relevant date for consideration is the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings and not of taking cognizance by the Magistrate or issuance of process by the Court, as held in the above decision. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners based on Section 468 of Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings and secondly, on merit, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose the commission of offences. Hence, there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioners touching limitation is concerned, the issue is set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision and it has been held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings and not of taking cognizance by the Magistrate or issuance of process by the Court. In view of this settled legal proposition, second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.
7. Insofar as the merits is concerned, the contention urged by the petitioners is based on the plea of truth and justification, which is required to be substantiated only during trial. The same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Since, the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose the ingredients of the offences, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings. Further, as per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act only the Editor, Publisher and the Printer of the newspaper could to be prosecuted for the offending publication made in the newspaper. The Chairman of the Board being not instrumental in the publication or editing of the newspaper, cannot be held liable. To that extent, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Proceedings in C.C.No.22466/2011 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed only insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is concerned. Proceedings shall continue against other accused persons as per law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV