The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.1243 of 2012 initiated against him for

offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was

functioning as a Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7

Kannada Television Channel. A complaint came to be registered

against the petitioner and several others on 14-03-2012 on an

3

incident that happened on 02-03-2012. It transpires that one of

the prominent personalities was being brought before the

competent criminal Court at Bangalore, at which point in time,

Advocates gathered in large numbers and created ruckus. This

was

telecast

in

television

and

electronic

media,

more

particularly, in the channel in which the petitioner was the

Managing Director along with other channels as breaking news

wherein the Advocates were allegedly compared to hooligans.

The petitioner was accused of airing certain programmes

allegedly portraying community of Advocates at large as rowdies,

vagabonds, scoundrels and goondas. On the said incident a

complaint of mass defamation was registered by the respondent

one Sri K.Koteswar Rao by invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

before the competent Court at Bellary. On the complaint being

registered, cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offence

punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC on 15-03-

2012. Pursuant to taking of cognizance, the Police investigated

into the matter and criminal trial is set in motion by an order of

the competent Court dated 01-09-2012. On issuance of process

4

in C.C.No.1243 of 2012 and conduct of trial, the petitioner has

knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

3. This Court by an order dated 07-08-2015 stayed all

further proceedings in C.C.No.1243 of 2012 insofar as it related

to the petitioner in the subject petition and the said interim

order is in operation even as on date. It is therefore further

proceedings are not conducted and concluded against the

petitioner.

4. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh

appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel

Sri S.S.Yadrami appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would urge

the following contentions:

The complaint registered was not even maintainable as the

petitioner is only a Managing Director of the company. Neither

the TV News Channel nor the company which owns the News

Channel is made an accused in the proceedings and therefore,

5

the very complaint is vitiated; cognizance is taken by the learned

Magistrate without even looking into the averments in the

complaint; order taking cognizance on 15-03-2012 suffers from

want of application of mind on the part of the learned

Magistrate; the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 of

the Cr.P.C. is not complied with by the learned Magistrate as the

complaint is registered at Bellary though the petitioner is a

resident of Bangalore and therefore, the procedure under

Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been followed by the

learned Magistrate prior to issuance of process; the order passed

under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. again suffers from want of

application of mind as there is no reason indicated with regard

to existence of sufficient ground to set the criminal trial in

motion.

6. On merits of the matter, the learned senior counsel

would submit that there can be no mass defamation in criminal

law as the complaint is not against the petitioner but against

several others and it is not the case of the complainant that he is

6

defamed but the entire community of Advocates is defamed.

Therefore, even on merits there is no warrant for registration of

any criminal case.

7. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel

Sri S.S.Yadrami in defence of registration of the complaint would

contend that at the stage of taking cogniz