O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.270 of 2022, dated 16.08.2022, registered by Mahabubabad Town Police Station, Mahabubabad District.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 36 in the aforesaid crime. The allegations against them attract offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pursuant to a referral made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Mr. A. Chandra Shaker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2/defacto complainant was also heard.

Factual Background

4. The material on record discloses that respondent No.2 instituted a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused persons had published and telecast false, malicious and defamatory news concerning her, thereby causing serious injury to her reputation and dignity. The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, by order dated 11.08.2022, referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Pursuant to the said reference, Crime No.270 of 2022 came to be registered.

Petitioners pleadings:

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had no direct or indirect role in the selection, approval, editing, publication, or telecast of the alleged news item and have been implicated solely on account of their association with the television channel.

5.2. It is further contended that the principal allegations in the complaint pertain to offences of defamation under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC, which are governed by the special procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., particularly Section 199 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate mechanically referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without examining whether the statutory prerequisites for invoking such jurisdiction existed.

5.3. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein it was emphasized that a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must apply judicial mind and satisfy himself regarding the necessity of directing investigation before passing such orders.

5.4. The petitioners also contend that they reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned and, therefore, the mandatory safeguards contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., particularly after the amendment introduced by Act 25 of 2005, ought to have been adhered to before issuance of process.

5.5. Thus, submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the absence of the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Pleadings of Respondent No.2

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that the complaint discloses specific allegations regarding publication and dissemination of defamatory material by the accused persons and that the initiation of criminal proceedings was fully justified.

6.2. At the same time, learned counsel fairly conceded that the learned Magistrate ought to have adopted the procedure applicable to complaints involving non-cognizable offences. It is argued that outright quashment of the complaint would seriously prejudice the rights of the complainant, particularly when the defect lies in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate rather than in the maintainability of the complaint itself.

6.3. It is further submitted that the accused, who are associated with the media establish