Mandatory inquiry required before criminal process issuance against accused residing outside jurisdiction to prevent harassment under Section 202 CrPC; absence of specific allegations in defamation claims invalidates proceedings.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 18/06/2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court") in Criminal Petition No.3829 of 2017, titled 'Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd and others v. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, arising out of complaint in PCR No. 13146/2014 and CC No.18491 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"). By the said order, the High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences under S.499 and S.500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short, " IPC "), however, quashed the complaint as far as M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (For short, "the company") (Accused No. 1) is concerned.

3. The genesis of the present cases lies in a private complaint dated 22/08/2014 filed by the complainant / respondent herein against the company and its directors, editors and journalists, numbering 14 accused persons, under S.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, "CrPC") read with S.499 and S.500 IPC . The gravamen of the complaint pertains to certain news articles published in various newspapers viz., Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India (Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune Editions), and The Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) on 27/06/2014, 28/06/2014, 29/06/2014, 06/07/2014, 07/07/2014, and 20/07/2014 which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent herein.

4. Upon receipt of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant / respondent was recorded on 14/11/2014. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same for the offences under S.499 and S.500 IPC and issue summons to the accused, vide order dated 29/07/2016. The complaint was received as PCR No.13146/2014 and later, registered as CC No.18491 of 2016 which is now, pending on the file of the trial Court.

5. Challenging the issuance of summons, the appellants filed Criminal Petition No.3829 of 2017 before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. After due contest, the High Court dismissed the petition as against the appellants herein, however, quashed the complaint as far as the company (A1) is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us with the present appeals.

6. CONTENTIONS
The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.2 (SLP (Crl.) No.10212 of 2024) made the following submissions:
(a) The appellant is neither the author of the alleged defamatory news articles nor editor of any of the newspapers in question; and he is editorial director of the company; and therefore, he is not responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory news articles.
(b) In the private complaint filed by the respondent, there is no specific averment regarding the appellant's role in publishing the alleged defamatory news articles, except mentioning his name as the editorial director of the company and thus, he could not have been arraigned as an accused.
(c) Under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 , it is the "editor" who controls the selection of matter published in the newspapers, besides requiring the names of editor, printer, and publisher to be published in the print line of the newspapers. The appellant's name does not appear in the print line of any of the newspapers tha