GIRISH SANGHI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.299 of 1997 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif, Chittoor, invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC in respect of a complaint launched for the offence under Section 500 IPC which has been taken cognizance of by the Magistrate under Section 500 IPC and ordered process. Unfortunately the publications which constitute defamation are not placed before the Court. In the absence of the same the defamatory nature and contents cannot be judged by traversing through the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner's Counsel mainly contends that there are no allegations made against the Editor-in-Chief attributing knowledge of the publication made in 'Vartha' Daily Newspapers. He has mainly placed reliance on the decision reported in KM. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) SCC 217, case. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the trial has already begun and it is not a case where the inherent powers can be exercised. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 29 of the complaint and contends that there is prima-facie material which constitutes an offence under Section 500 IPC. It is observed in the decision reported in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, case, 2002 3 SCC 89, that where the factual matters clearly show commission of offence the Court should not exercise power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges.

(2.) It is observed by the Supreme Court in KM. Mathew's case (supra) at paragraphs 9 and 10 as follows:-

(3.) I have perused paragraph No.29. It is only a mechanical repetition of the words and does not clearly state or attribute knowledge to the Chief Editor. It is also clearly stated by the Supreme Court that to ask the Chief Editor to undergo trial in the Courts merely on the ground of issue of process will be oppressive. The material placed before the Court, including the averments in the complaint do not attribute clear knowledge to the then Editor-in-Chief working in the Vartha newspaper. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against A2 the Chief Editor in-charge is liable to be quashed and so far as others are concerned, the material is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 500 IPC. To sum up, I find that the issue of process and the charge- sheet is liable to be quashed insofar as A2 who is the 2nd petitioner herein is concerned and insofar as the 1 st petitioner and other accused are concerned, the trial shall go on.