ORDER :

These Crl.M.C.s are filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.532 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl.M.C.No.8 of 2020 is filed by the 1st accused, Crl.M.C.No.1663 of 2020 is filed by the 2nd accused, Crl.M.C.No.23 of 2020 is filed by the 3rd accused and Crl.M.C.No.1666 of 2020 is filed by the 4th accused.

2. The aforesaid calendar case was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.8 of 2020 (hereinafter referred as complainant). Offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. Gist of the allegation is as follows:

The 1st accused, is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s TV Today Network Ltd., owned by M/s Living Media, 2nd accused is the Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Living media, 3rd accused is the Chairman and Managing Director of Aditya Birla Group, owner of M/s.Living Media India Ltd. and the 4th accused is M/s.TV Today Network Ltd. On 03.08.2017, India Today TV, which is a news channel, telecasted a news item at about 10 pm showing one Manikkuttan as the main accused in the murder of one Rajesh, which occurred on 29.07.2017. While, telecasting the aforesaid news item, photo shown in the channel was that of the 2nd respondent, by stating that, it is the photograph of the said Manikkuttan. It is averred that telecasting of the said news item along with the photograph of the complainant with the wrong description, mentioned as above, continued for about three days. Consequently, a notice was issued on 07.10.2017 and thereafter, the said complaint was submitted by the complainant before the learned Magistrate and cognizance was taken thereof. Annexure-A6 in Crl.MC.No.8 of 2020 is the aforesaid complaint.

3. These Crl.M.Cs are filed for quashing all further proceedings in the said complaint by raising the contention that the averments in the said complaint do not disclose any offence as against the petitioners herein.

4. Heard Sri.Hrishikesh Baruah, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.John Varghese, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.M.C.Nos.8 of 2020, 1663 of 2020 and 1666 of 2020, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.A.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.23 of 2020 and Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.

5. Sri.Hrishikesh Baruah, Learned senior counsel mainly contended that the averments contained in the complaint do not disclose the role of the petitioners in preparing, editing or telecasting the news item, which is the subject-matter of the complaint. According to the learned senior counsel, even without any specific allegation, the Chairman and Managing Director of the company which runs the TV channel were arraigned as accused. It was also contended that, in criminal law the concept of vicarious liability is not applicable unless the same is specifically mentioned in the statute itself. It was also contended that, accused No.4 being a juristic person, it cannot be implicated for an offence under Section 499 IPC. The learned counsel relies on judgments reported in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. [V(2021) SLT 755], Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2008) 5 SCC 668], Rajan Bihari Lal Raheja & Ors. v. Planman Consulting India Pvt.Ltd. [(2011) 126 DRJ 468], Sanjai Pinto v. A.Kamaraj [2012(2) CTC 352], Raimond Ltd. & Ors. v. Rameshwar Das Dwarakadas P.Ltd. [II(2013) DLT (Crl.) 853] and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.[IV (2013 SLT 191].

6. The learned Senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar, supported the contentions put forward by the Sri.Hrishikesh Baruah and made an additional contention that the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.23 of 2020 was wrongfully arrayed as an accused. It was contended that the 3rd accused is the Chairman and Managing Director of Adithya Birla group and he was implicated as an accused in the complaint under the impression that he is the owner o