RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. K.KOTESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Ss. 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 14/3/2012 on an incident that happened on 2/3/2012. 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 Sec. 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 Ss. 499 and 500 of the IPC on 15/3/2012. 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 dtd. 1/9/2012. On issuance of process 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 dtd. 7/8/2015 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.