Back
Quashes Against TV9 Directors in Case for Lack of
Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale of the has quashed the issued to two managing directors of in a case, ruling that the magistrate court failed to record a fresh under after adding them as accused.
The court observed that the statement of the complainant, Mumbai Police officer Rajesh Sawane, was recorded on —before the amendment adding the directors as accused was allowed on . Since no re- was conducted after the amendment, the issued on against Ravi Prakash Velicheti and Narsimha Murthy Kalyana Venkata Mangipudi was unsustainable.
Background: The Complaint
The case stems from a complaint filed by Sawane, a policeman with the . He alleged that on , while on patrolling duty, he encountered his brother-in-law near a bus stop in MIDC. A heated exchange ensued, and a woman named Yamini Shinde allegedly assaulted and abused him. The incident was recorded and telecast on TV9 on December 14 and 15, 2013, under the title “Mumbai Khakiwalachi Dhuli” (Assault of Mumbai Policeman).
Sawane claimed the telecast was biased and prejudiced, lowering his self-esteem and harming his reputation. He filed a private complaint for under . Initially, the complaint was only against the Editor of Sawane’s statement was recorded on .
On , Sawane moved an application to amend the complaint, stating he had inadvertently forgotten to include the names of the managing directors. The amendment was allowed the same day, adding Velicheti and Mangipudi as accused. However, the complaint itself was not amended—no new allegations or averments were made against them. The magistrate then issued against all three accused on .
Arguments: Failure to Verify and Lack of Allegations
The petitioners, represented by , argued that the magistrate court committed a serious procedural error by not recording a fresh statement after the amendment. They contended that the recorded on —when only the editor was the accused—could not be relied upon to issue against the newly added directors. Moreover, no averments whatsoever were made against them in the complaint; they were simply added as accused by virtue of their positions as managing directors.
On behalf of the respondent-complainant, submitted that a case was made out because the news item was defamatory and the accused refused to apologize. He argued that the amendment was essential and that the order issuing demonstrated proper application of mind.
Legal Analysis: Is Not a Mere Formality
The court extensively reviewed the law on under (now ). Citing judgments from the and the , including , , and , Justice Bhonsale emphasized that is a mandatory judicial duty.
The object of recording a complainant’s statement under Section 200 is to ascertain the truth of the allegations and prevent frivolous or . The court noted that “the recording of the statement of a Complainant under is to bring out the truth. It is not an empty formality.”
In the present case, after the amendment adding the directors, the magistrate did not record a fresh . The order issuing also failed to reference the role of the newly added accused or any attributed to them. The court found that merely because the petitioners were managing directors of the company, without any specific , no case was made out against them.
Key Observations
“I find that, before issuing the against the Petitioners there was no statement recorded. Pertinent to note that, order of issuing is after the amendment and includes the newly added accused. The object and purpose of recording a statement of the Complainant is to ascertain and arrive at the true and correct facts of the case.”
“Considering that, no amendment of any sort was carried out in the complaint apart from adding the Petitioners as Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2, one fails to understand how without any whatsoever and merely because Petitioners were Managing Directors of the company, even a case was made out against the Petitioners.”
“The recording of the statement of a Complainant under (now 223 of ) is to bring out the truth. It is not an empty formality.”
Court’s Decision
The partly allowed the petition, quashing the order issuing dated . The court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter from the stage of recording under Section 200 CrPC, in accordance with law.
The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and kept all contentions open. The ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of under Section 200 CrPC, particularly when new accused are added through amendment, and serves as a check against .
