P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to call for records relating to the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1172 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Sun TV Network Limited, which owns and telecasts South Indian Satellite channels in India. The respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, pursuant to the programme, which is said to have been telecast on 06.03.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. and on 07.03.2009 at about 7.30 a.m. wherein, other accused viz. Tmt. Christhumani has given an interview about certain proceedings in C.C. No. 5 of 2009 pending at Manavalakurichi Police Station. The complaint has been filed on the ground that the statement given by Tmt. Christhumani is false and consequently, the telecast is also defamatory.

3. The petitioner as Chairman-cum-Managing Director is only in-charge of taking policy and important decisions of the company and he has no role to play in the telecast. There is a separate news department, which is responsible for taking a decision and as to what programme to be telecast and what programme not to be telecast. The complaint lodged is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. There is no allegation in the complaint that this petitioner has acted with any mala-fide intention personally nor is there any allegation that the petitioner was in any manner involved in the telecast. The proceeding is nothing but an abuses of process of law. The alleged notice sent by the respondent/complainant was sent to wrong address. Therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are liable to quashed.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that vicarious liability is not applicable to the electronic media and as per general law, there is absolutely no material to attract the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C. and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contends that the petitioner has not furnished the particulars of the persons, who are responsible for the telecast in spite of the notice of the respondent/complainant; that the petitioner having telecast the interview given by the first accused Tmt. Christhumani without verifying the correctness acted recklessly and therefore, the criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. As per the complaint preferred by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, A1 Tmt. Christhumani gave an interview in a programme of 'Nijam' involving the respondent/ complainant in a crime and the same was telecast in the SUN TV owned by the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate took the case on file for the offences under Section 501 of I.P.C. as against Christhumani and the petitioner herein as A1 and A2.

7. The respondent contends that in spite of notice to the petitioner concern, he has not furnished the particulars about the persons, who are responsible for the telecast. For this, even in the petition, it has been averred by the petitioner that the office of the SUN TV was shifted long back and the notice was sent to a wrong address by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, no document has been filed by the respondent/complainant as to the service of the notice either to the petitioner or to his concern viz. SUN TV Network.

8. This defamation case is against an electronic media. No doubt, the Constitution of India provides freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be taken to mean absolute freedom to say or write whatever a person chooses recklessly and without regard to any person's honour and reputation.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior coun