LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-98

R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED

Decided On November 19, 2007
R.LAKSHMIPATHY Appellant
V/S
SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash all further proceedings in C. C. No. 7707 of 2007 pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate court, Chennai. On a complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate has issued process against the accused and being aggrieved by that the petitioners have filed the above petition.

(2.) THE first petitioner is the Editor of the Daily Tamil newspaper-Dinamalar and the second petitioner is its Publisher and they are also partners of the firm-Dinamalar. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The alleged imputation complained of by the respondent is that a news item was published on 30. 09. 2007 in Dinamalar Daily wherein in the said news item certain statements were made and the said statements are perse defamatory and it was further alleged that the same was made with an intention to bring bad reputation to the complainant among the general public, subscribers and viewers of the complainant.

(3.) THE petitioners seek to quash the said complaint contending that a corporation cannot complain of loss of reputation as the Corporation has no reputation apart from its property or trade; it cannot bring a prosecution for words which merely affect its honour or dignity; a reading of the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement shows that the complainant / respondent is complaining that the alleged statement in the news item has affected its honour and name whereas the name of the respondent was not at all mentioned in the statement, but only the name of 'sun DTH' was mentioned and the alleged imputations published in the petitioners' newspaper is not against the complainant. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the complainant is not an aggrieved person and as such it cannot file the complaint.