ORDER :

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.18/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamathitta which was instituted on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Section 500 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The basic allegation in Annexure-1 private complaint is relating to certain defamatory statements alleged to have been made by the 1st accused, the editor and anchor of Asianet News, a Malayalam T.V. news channel, against certain Advocates who are the members of Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association. The 1st respondent herein is a lawyer practicing at Thiruvananthapuram and also the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association. It was alleged in Annexure-1 complaint that, the statements made by the 1st accused during the News Hour programme at 9 a.m. on 15.10.2016, to the effect that, the lawyers have committed atrocities inside the court room and the 1st respondent herein has acted like a goonda etc are defamatory in nature. It was also averred in the said complaint that, the aforesaid statements are incorrect and were made by the 1st accused with the intention to defame the lawyer fraternity and also the 1st respondent herein.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was arraigned as one of the accused persons under the impression that, he was the Chairman and Managing Director of Asianet News channel. But, by relying upon Annexures II and III documents, it is pointed out that he resigned from the Directorship of M/s Asianet News Network Private Ltd, with effect from 4.11.2013 and as on the date of airing the news item which is the subject matter of Annexure-I complaint, he was not a Director. It is also his case that, Annexure-I complaint do not contain any specific allegations indicating that the petitioner herein had any role in selection of news item and had any control over the discussion during which the aforesaid defamatory statements were alleged to have been made. In such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) to quash all proceedings against him pursuant to Annexure-I.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. Even though notice was served to the 1st respondent, there is no appearance for him.

5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of occurrence of the alleged crime, the petitioner was not the Director of the Company. In support of the said contention, Annexure-II which is a Form 20B under Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 wherein the details of the status of the Directors of M/s Asianet Network Private Limited which is the Company managing the news channel are mentioned. On going through the said document, which is a public document, it is evident that he was a Director of the said Company for the period from 29.9.2008 till 4.11.2013. Annexure-III is Form 32 issued pursuant to Section 303(2), 264(2) or 266(1)(a) and 266(1)(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1956 which is a document containing the particulars of appointment of Managing Director, Directors, Manager and Secretary. In the aforesaid document also, it is shown that, the petitioner herein had resigned from the Board of Directors with effect from 4.11.2013. As per Annexure-I complaint, the programme which allegedly contained defamatory statement against the 1st respondent was aired on 15.10.2016. Going by the aforesaid documents, it is evident that as on the date of occurrence of the offence, the petitioner was not holding any official position so as to control the affairs of the said Company.

6. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is assumed for argument sake that the petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, which is running the news channel, no offence under Sec