Vicarious liability does not apply to criminal offences, and specific allegations are required to establish individual liability for the commission of an offence.

ORDER :

1. The Managing Director of a company which owns a television channel has filed this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) for quashing the criminal prosecution initiated against him for committing the offences punishable under Ss.500,501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner is the fourth accused in the case S.T.No.29/2016 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The aforesaid case is one instituted upon the complaint filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to also as ‘the complainant’) against nine persons including the petitioner. The material averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant was the Additional Sub Inspector of the Pathanamthitta Police Station. On 16.03.2015, when he was checking vehicles at the M.L.A. Road at Chemmannur, he stopped the motor cycle driven by the first accused. The second accused was the pillion rider of the motor cycle. The complainant directed the first accused to pay a fine of Rs.100/-for not wearing the helmet while riding the motor cycle. He paid the amount and received the receipt but a wordy altercation took place. The first and the second accused told the complainant that they were persons from a television channel and they threatened him. The second accused took video pictures of the complainant. On that day, at 13:30 hours, visuals of the complainant opening the zipper of his trouser in front of the first and the second accused were telecast in the Fox television channel with the caption “hero of the blue film”. The complainant had not committed any such act. The telecast was repeated on several days in the aforesaid television channel with a view to defame the complainant.

4. The first and the second accused are the videographers of ‘Punalur Live Channel’. The third accused is the Managing Director of ‘Punalur Fox Channel’. The fourth and the sixth accused telecast the video pictures with the intention to defame the complainant. The fifth accused is the person who reported the news on behalf of the Kairali T.V. The seventh accused published the news, with the photograph of the complainant, in the Deshabhimani newspaper on 24.08.2015. Accused 8 and 9 have taken video pictures of the complainant at the time of accompanying a Minister and published the same in the television channels in the gulf countries with the caption “hero of the blue film accompanying the Minister”. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Ss.500, 501 and 502 read with 34 I.P.C.

5. This application under S.482 of the Code is filed by the fourth accused for quashing the complaint filed by the first respondent and all further proceedings based on the complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant was continuously absent on the hearing dates. The records would show that, inspite of giving notice to the learned counsel regarding the posting of the case for final hearing, she did not appear. In such circumstances, I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and reserved the case for orders. The case was included in the daily list on 22.02.2021 for pronouncing orders. Then, the learned counsel for the first respondent appeared before the court. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent also on that day.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused on the ground that he is the Managing Director of the Kairali T.V. Learned counsel would contend that the company by name Malayalam Communications Limited (for short ‘the company’) which owns Kairali T.V. is a separate legal entity and the alleged offences were committed by the company but it is not made an accused in the case. Learned counsel would contend that, without impleading the company as an accused, the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in the case