ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.888/2017 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on the private complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused Nos.1, 2 and accused No.3-petitioner herein, for the above said offences.

4. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that accused No.1 is said to be the owner of Kannada TV channel, accused No.2 is said to be local correspondent in Udupi and D.K. District, and accused No.3-petitioner herein made statement in express terms who is said to be news reader. Accused No.1-TV channel telecasted defamatory statements and false news against the complainant which was read out by the petitioner. Scandalous words were repeatedly uttered, which were defamatory and the false imputation has lowered the dignity of the complainant. After registering the private complaint, the trial Court took cognizance, which is under challenge.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is only the news reader and while taking cognizance, the Magistrate has passed an order without application of mind. There is no enquiry made by the Magistrate under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The complainant is from Udupi and the accused is from Bengaluru. Therefore, there is no case made for proceeding against the petitioner. The learned counsel has also contended that there was a compact disc (CD) produced by the complainant, which was not opened by the Magistrate and no certificate is produced under Section 65 of Evidence Act. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has objected the petition contending mainly on the ground that the petitioner and other accused already approached the High Court in criminal petition No.6098/2019 and the said petition came to be dismissed on 30.06.2021 wherein, this Court has not granted any liberty to approach the Court once again. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel further contended that the Magistrate has already examined two witnesses and got marked documents, which is nothing but an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and after passing the detailed order, the Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no flaw in the order of the Magistrate. The learned counsel also contended that as regards the certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, it has to be produced at the time of examination-in-chief by the witness who trust the CD as electronic evidence. The learned Counsel further contended that the original news telecasted by the accused persons is with them, who is running the TV channel. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

8. The records reveal that the respondent-complainant has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC, wherein accused No.1 is said to be published scandalous news by defaming the complainant. Admittedly, accused No.1 running the TV channel, accused No.2 is reporter and the petitioner is news reader. It is also an admitted fact that they filed a petition before this Court which came to be rejected and in the said petition, no liberty was granted for approaching the Court once again. However, the main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that there is no enquiry under made Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. In this regard, perusal of the order sheet reveals that after filing of the private complaint, the Magistrate called the