SURYA T.V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the 5th accused in CC No. 490/2004, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Neyyattinkara to quash Annexure A1 complaint dated 25/03/2004 filed by the second respondent against the petitioner and five other accused and Annexure A4 - summons issued to the petitioner as the 5th accused in the above case. CC No. 490/2004 arose out of private complaint filed by the second respondent herein alleging commission of an offence under S.499 punishable under S.500 IPC.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the General Manager of Surya T.V., who is entrusted with the general administration of the Surya T.V., who is shown as the 5th accused in Annexure A1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. It is alleged in this petition that the petitioner has no connection with the production of the programme alleged to be defamatory in Annexure A1 complaint. The programme "Aniyara" was broadcasted by NTV on 18/01/2004 at 4 p.m. and the same was telecasted through the petitioner. It was independently produced by NTV and the petitioner's role was only to allot a time slot for their telecast on sufficient payment. The relationship of the petitioner with the telecast of the alleged defamatory item was only a contractual one. There is no allegation in the complaint to connect the petitioner herein to the alleged offence. Annexure A4 notice was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner without considering the facts and due to non application of mind. Therefore, the complainant / 2nd respondent has unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to face the criminal trial in CC No. 490/2004 and Annexure A1 complaint as against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The abovesaid statement is highly defamatory and has shattered the reputation of the complainant as he is one of the senior Advocate of Neyyattinkara Bar association. The accused numbers 1, 2 and 3 have done this with the intention of defaming the complainant can be smelt from the projection of photo itself during the interview.