Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18982
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
M.M.HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/3534/2014
SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, SMT.V.H.JASMINE, SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
Specific allegations are essential for holding a managerial official liable for defamation; mere position does not invoke liability.
Headnote:
Quash - Defamation - IPC Section List - This case discussed Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for specific allegations against a managing director for defamation charges, highlighting that without such allegations, the magistrate cannot take cognizance of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Managing Director of a TV Channel, faces charges of defamation stemming from a complaint by a local leader, alleging the airing of scandalous and unverified news that damaged his reputation.
Issues: Whether the Managing Director can be held liable for defamation without specific allegations implicating him in the act of airing allegedly defamatory content.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for liability in defamation, there must be clear allegations demonstrating knowledge or direct involvement; mere managerial status is insufficient.
Final Decision: The complaint and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
O R D E R
1.This petition is preferred under S.482 of the Cr.P.C seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.300/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Kottarakkara. The petitioner is the 4th accused in the said prosecution initiated by the 2nd respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under S. 499 and 500 r/w S.34 of the IPC .
2.The complaint is seen preferred by the 2nd respondent /
complainant who was the then President of Kareepra Grama Panchayath. The allegation in the complainant can be summarized in the following lines :
There existed a dispute between the 2nd respondent and accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a pathway which was allegedly shared by the parties. The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the Managing Directors of two TV Channels. Allegation is that on 30.07.2010, at various times, the channel of which the petitioner herein is the Managing Director aired scandalous news against the 2nd respondent at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The news essentially was that the 2nd respondent who was the Panchayath president of Kareepra had closed down the access of the 1st accused and his family. Certain visuals depicting the sorry plight of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were aired in the channels. This, according to the 2nd respondent, lowered his image and reputation in the estimation of right thinking people of the locality and made him the subject of ridicule. According to the 2nd respondent, there was no truth in the allegations and by airing the news without ascertaining its authenticity, the petitioner, who is arrayed in his capacity as the Managing Director of Jaihind TV has committed the offence under S.500 of the IPC .
3.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after examining the complainant and his witnesses. The aforesaid proceedings are under challenge in this petition.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took grave exception in the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without a semblance of an allegation in the complaint showing his culpability. By referring to Annexure A2 complaint, it was argued that as the Managing Director of Jaihind TV, the petitioner is concerned only with the business of running the TV Channel and he has no connection with the selection of the news item or the content of the news. The News editor, Content editor, Sub editor and reporter are the persons involved in the choosing and selection of news and without specific allegations in the complaint, the petitioner, as the business head, cannot be held liable under section 500 of the IPC . The learned counsel would further contend that the 3rd accused, who is the Managing Director of Surya TV had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition under S.482 of the Code and this Court as per order dated 14.07.2014 in Crl.M.C.No.4655/2013, had quashed the proceedings. The allegation in the complaint are exactly identical viz a viz the 3rd accused and there is no reason why the petitioner should be subjected to the ordeal of a criminal trial when prima facie materials are not placed before court to take cognizance against the petitioner.
6.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
I have also gone through Annexure A2 complaint. The allegation in the complaint is directed against the Managing Director of Jai Hind Channel, who, according to the complainant, was instrumental in airing the news item without ascertaining its authenticity. Nowhere in the complaint has it been alleged that the Managing Director of the company was responsible for the selection of the news item or that it was aired with his connivance or knowledge.
7. S.499 of IPC provides that "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
