Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MITALI THAKURIA
Dipannita Jaiswal W/o Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
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
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.
Vicarious liability does not apply to criminal offences, and specific allegations are required to establish individual liability for the commission of an offence.
A lack of governmental consent under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for defamation offences, emphasizing the media's role in reporting on public matters.
Defamation requires specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm; failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry before issuing summons renders the proceedings invalid.
The publication of defamatory statements without substantiation violates the rights of the affected person, and intention or knowledge regarding reputational harm suffices for establishing defamation....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on a company's directors under IPC unless there is specific statutory provision; direct involvement must be established.
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on company Directors without specific statutory provisions; mere designation does not imply culpability without evidence of involvement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
