The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of freedom of the press and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the IPC in the context of journalistic activities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for records in PRC No.68 of 2019 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore relating to Crime No.212 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.)

This criminal original petition has been filed to call for records in PRC No.68 of 2019 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore relating to Crime No.212 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner(A1) is an Investigative Journalist editing, printing and publishing the tamil magazine “Nakkheeran”. The second and third petitioners (A2 & A3) are Chief Special Reporters. The fourth petitioner (A4) is Joint publisher of the said magazine. The fifth petitioner (A5) is Chief Special Reporter of the said magazine. The accused persons A1 to A5 have entered into criminal conspiracy and published fake and derogatory news in the Nakkheeran magazine issues dated 20.04.2018, 02.04.2018 and 26.09.2018 about His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu with an intention to prevent him from exercising his lawful powers and duties and the same amounts to overawing the Governor of Tamil Nadu, hence, prosecuted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 124, 120-B, 505 (i)(b), 506(i) r/w 34 IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the comprehensive article, covering 9 pages, the petitioners have reported the opinions and statements made by various persons, who are one way or other connected to the activities of Professor Nirmala Devi and the University. Public opinion was also reported and the relevant parts are:

i. The Photographs of His Excellency were published.

iii. The article points out the involvement of many political leaders.

iv. It shows the photos of the University staff protesting against prof.Nirmala Devi.

v. How Prof.Nirmala Devi was flaunting her photo-shoots with His Excellency Governor.

vi. The Statement of Prof.Nirmala Devi, that she made use of her contacts for making money.

vii. The opinion and fact statements of the office bearers of the college, where she worked.

viii. The said news article was of high public utility. It brought out a sex scandal where the Professor Nirmala Devi brainwashed and misused her girl students.

4. The said article was a as a matter of fact reporting. It never intended to hurt anyone. Not the least His Excellency Governor. It was only a scandal exposure. The article is not a criminal intimidation, nor was it conducive to incite anyone to commit any offence against state or public tranquillity. The petitioners rely on the following case laws to justify that the impugned publication cannot be counted as an act of any offence.

a. 2021 (15) Sec.35; Patricia Mukhim case

b. 2021 (2) Crimes 361: Vinod Dua Case

c. 2022 (1) MLJ Crl.550: Mathivanan Case

d. 2021 (6) CTC 838: M.Maridar Case

e. Dr.Sambit Patra Case Law Finder id # 1830771

f. 2007 Crl.L.J.1195: Subal Kumar Day

ii. Likewise, the news content of any publication either in print media or social media cannot be material for the offence under Section 506(i)

a. 2015 (3) SCC Crl.132 : Manik Taneja Case

b. 2010 (86) AIC 799 : Ram Kumar Misra

c. 2007 Crl.L.J. 1204 : Tammineedi Case

d. 2008 (1) JLJR 158 : Sunil Kumar Singh

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the accused are Publisher, Editor and Reporter of weekly magazine “Nakkheeran”. They conjointly made false and frivolous allegations against the Tamil Nadu State Governor and