A Managing Director cannot be held vicariously liable for defamation unless there are specific allegations of involvement; absence of such allegations warrants quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the impugned proceeding drawn under Section 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code, being Complaint Case No. 4285/2013 and pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-I, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and issued process against the present petitioner.

3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Chairman cum Managing Director of a Company, namely, M/s. Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., which is running a T.V. Channel namely, the DY 365 and the petitioner is looking after the general administration of the company. It is submitted by the petitioner that a summons was received in the office of the petitioner, whereby she was asked to appear before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate- I, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. From the Summons it has come to the notice of the petitioner that a Complaint Case being C.R. Case No.4285/2013 has been registered under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and by the impugned order dated 31.07.2014, the learned Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance of offence under section 500/34 of Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioner, fixing 12.09.2014 for appearance.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the drawing up of the proceeding against the present petitioner in the instant case i.e. Complaint Case No.4285/2013, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

5. It is contended by Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under section 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present petitioner and there is no statement that it is the petitioner who defamed Opposite Party No.2 and as such the impugned order dated 31.07.2014, taking cognizance is bad in law and the proceeding is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the company and she has nothing to do with the programmes that are broadcasted by the news channel and for the programmes broadcasted by the Television channel is the sole responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of the Television Channel and as such issuing of process against the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under the Press Laws, it is always the Editor who controls the selection of the matter for the purpose of broadcasting is responsible and the Managing Director of the company cannot be fastened with criminal liability and as such order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no specific allegation has been brought against the present petitioner in the complaint petition nor there is any statement as to how the present petitioner is involved in broadcasting the said news item or whether she has any involvement in selection of the news item, which is stated to be defamatory one. The present petitioner is working as the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Company and it is only the editor who is responsible or who controls the selection of the news item or