RAMOJI RAO Vs. M MADHAV REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by name Sri Ramoji Rao, the Editor and Publisher of Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy district is A.2 including the A.1-Ms.Charu Sinha IPS in C.C.No.23 of 2011 for the offence punishable u/sec.500IPC taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana State, from the private complaint dt.13.10.2008 of the 1st respondent- by name M.Madhava Reddy Retired Addl. Superintendent of Police(ASP). Impugning the said cognizance, the present petition filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in the Calander Case supra against him.

(2.) The grounds urged in the quash petition are that the petitioner is innocent and the defacto-complainant filed O.S.No.69 of 2018 against the two accused before the 1st Addl.District Judge, Mahaboobnagar seeking damages of Rs.15lakhs for the malicious publication of the news item dt.12-10-2007, which is subject matter of C.C.No.23 of 2011 and the suit was dismissed on 29-8-2017 holding that the defacto-complainant failed to prove malice on the part of the accused and the publication was made based on a complaint given by one Dr.Karunakar Reddy and during the course of cross-examination in the suit, the defacto-complainant admitted to allegations made against him by Dr.Karunakar Reddy and his reputation was not lowered due to the publication of the news item and the petitioner-A.2 has no personal knowledge of the publication. The A-I filed a petition U/s. 482 of CrPC, before the High Court seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2011 supra vide Crl.P.No. 13649 of 2011 and the same was since allowed on 4-10-2018 by referring to the judgment in O.S.No. 69 of 2008 dt.29-8- 2017 and the proceedings against A-1 were quashed, the proceedings against the A.2 are also liable to be quashed as the allegations in the complaint disclose that the petitioner/A.2 published the news item basing on the defamatory content provided by A-1. A perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.69 of 2008 reveals that the defacto-complainant failed to prove malice on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner had knowledge about the contents of the news item dt.12-10-2007, failed to prove his reputation was lowered in society and failed to prove the contents of the news item were false and published in bad faith. The defactocomplainant failed to prove his case before the civil Court and the present complaint filed on the same set of facts, is also liable to be quashed. The allegation in the complaint is that the news item dt. 12-10-2007 was published basing upon interview given by A-1 wherein various allegations were levelled against the defacto-complainant. However during the course of trial in the O.S.No.69 of 2008, it was found that the news item dt.12-10-2007 was published basing on a letter given by one Dr.Karunakar Reddy touching upon the conduct of the defacto-complainant as a public servant for nothing to say the contents of said letter of Dr.Karunakar Reddy are false or fabricated much less to the knowledge of the publisher of the news item. It is already stated that the P.Ws.2 and 3 whose sworn statement were also recorded in the case already examined as witnesses in O.S.No.69 of 2008 and the evidence of those were already discussed in the civil Court judgment at para-19 and whose evidence did not prove reputation of the complainant was lowered in the society to attract the offence and the Apex Court in R.Raja Gopal Vs.State of Tamilnadu, 1995 AIR(SC) 264=1994(6) SCC 632 held that the remedy of action for damages is not available to public servant with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties unless it is shown by the public servant of the publication made with a reckless disregard for the truth as he has no legal recourse. In the present case the contents of the news item published upon receiving a letter from one Dr.Karunakar Reddy, cannot be said to be false and malicious much less defames the complainant and M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a company that publishes the Eenadu Telugu Daily. M/S.News Today Pvt. Ltd., is a company that supplies news to M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., for publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily. The petitioner only lays down the policy of the newspaper and it is the team of the sub-editors Of 'News Today' that are responsible for publication of the news item made based on reliable material and made regarding the conduct and character of a public servant and it is therefore a privileged publication protected under the 2nd and 9th exceptions of Section 499 of IPC, moreover, the petitioner had no personal knowledge about the publication of the news item. Hence to quash the proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 reiterated the same seeking to quash the proceedings in the Calander Case supra against him. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant submits that the news items per se is defamatory and demeaning the complainant and it is without verification properly the news item made in disregard to truth. Thereby there is nothing to quash the proceedings merely because of the dismissal of civil suit, the A.2 cannot escape from the tooth of criminal law and sought for dismissal of the quash petition.