KASHISH GUPTA Vs. CITY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are accused and the respondent is complainant. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C . after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, has taken cognizance on the complaint in C.C.No.15 of 2013 and issued summons on the petitioners. The accused 1 to 4, on receipt of the summons, approached this Court, seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.15 of 2013 against them.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that first accused was a anchor of the show, which was telecast by New Delhi Television Limited (herein after referred to as "NDTV Ltd.,"), in which, according to the complainant, defamatory was made, second accused was Chairman of NDTV Ltd., third accused was Chief Executive Officer and fourth accused was Executive Vice Chairman of the NDTV Ltd. It is admitted by the respondent in his complaint that show was telecasted by NDTV, but, however, NDTV was not named as accused in his complaint. Further The entire complaint is silent on the role played by the petitioners in the alleged defamation. There is no specific averment as to how each of the petitioners involved in the commission of alleged offence. Merely because the petitioners hold some position in the NDTV Ltd., they cannot be prosecuted, that too in the absence of adding the Company, in which the petitioners are employees, as accused. Further the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, failed to conduct enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., through which, the learned Judge firstly satisfy himself whether prima facie there is any case to proceed and thereafter only, he can issue summons on the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and also the Delhi High Court.