JUDGMENT :-

1) By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (now Section 528 of BNSS) the Petitioners, seek to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 11th April 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri in CC No. 1617/SS/2015, whereby the process was issued against the accused for offences punishable under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the Order dated 24th November 2015, whereby the amendment was allowed, permitting to add the Petitioners as accused in the complaint. By Order dated 16th July 2018, this Court was pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e).

2) Heard, Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mrs. Sangita Phad, A.P.P for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Vishal Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.

3) The facts as alleged in the complaint are as under :-

3.1) That, the Original Complainant/Respondent No.2 is working with the Mumbai Police Force. On 24th August 2013, when Respondent No.2 was on patrolling duty, he noticed, his brother-in-law Mr. Ambresh Kashinath Bhusane, standing near the Sainath Nagar Bus stop, MIDC. That, when Respondent No.2 went to him, Mr. Ambresh Kashinath Bhusane being annoyed with Respondent No.2, was interacting with him in a loud voice. After some time, one lady Ms. Yamini Vishwas Shinde, suddenly came there. Ambresh Kashinath Bhusane and the said lady assaulted and abused Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 filed FIR No. 598 of 2013 dated 24th October 2013 under Section 353, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC.

3.2) According to Respondent No.2, the said actions were set up and pre-planned incident, which was recorded by the accused with an ulterior motive and was eventually telecast on TV through the TV 9 Channel on two or three occasions on 14th December 2013 and 15th December 2013. That, the telecast was a prejudiced and biased news given to the public at large.

3.3) Respondent No.2 received information from his colleague Mr. Shyamrao Subrao Dubal, about the telecast of the incident. The telecast, was titled as “Mumbai Khakiwalachi Dulhi”. That, the said telecast/news became the talking point of the area and everyone started looking at Respondent No.2 as if he was a culprit. The said incident not only lowered his self-esteem and confidence but also slaughtered his image, dignity and reputation in the eyes of his relatives, friends, colleagues, well wishers and the common public.

3.4) That, the accused never made any efforts to find out the truth of the story, the real facts and transmitted the prejudicial news item. That, the said news has put a serious question mark on the integrity, honesty and character of Respondent No.2 and defamed, lowered the dignity and tremendously harmed the reputation of Respondent No.2 as well as the entire Police Force in the State of Maharashtra.

3.5) By notice dated 7th January 2014, Respondent No.2, through his Advocate, called upon the accused to tender unconditional apology. That, the accused, through their Advocates by reply dated 20th January 2014, refused to tender an apology.

3.6) On the aforesaid basis, the complaint came to be filed. The verification statement was recorded on 28th July 2015.

3.7) Respondent No.2 made an Application on 24th November 2015 seeking amendment to add the present Petitioners as co-accused to the complaint, on the ground that, Respondent No.2 had inadvertently forgotten to incorporate the names of the accused. That, as the Petitioners are Managing Directors of the accused, they are responsible for commission of the offence. On the same day, i.e. 24th November 2015, the amendment was allowed. The process was then issued on 11th April 2017 against all the accused.

4) Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that:-

4.1) The complaint was filed on 4th April 2015, ag