ORDER: Criminal Original Petition is to seek quashment of the chargesheet taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram in C.C.No.83 of 2005. 2. The petitioner stands charged for offences under Secs.176, 179 read with Sec.195, I.P.C., and under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. 3. That on 9.12.2004, at the premises of the office of the special investigation team designated for the investigation of Sankararaman murder case at Kancheepuram, within the jurisdiction of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, the accused, being the columnist in English and Tamil dailies and in selective Tamil magazines, with the intention to create false evidence and to side track the special investigation team from the above said murder case, wrote misleading articles in “The New Indian Express” and the same was published on 23.11.2004 with the head line “As the Sankarachariya stands like Abimanyu” at page No.9 and on 24.11.2004 as “unless the case is re-investigated, justice will not be done” at page No.9 and on 26.11.2004 “as its dead who will do the funeral, and when?” at page No.9 and also wrote in Thuklak Magazine dated 1.12.2004 and in the same magazine on 8.12.2004 as on 15.12.2004 as and on 22.12.2004 as and while questioning the act of the accused on the said date on 9.12.2004 by the Chief Investigation Officer of the said Special Investigation Team, a public servant, for clarification about his articles in order to find out the real truth if any as mentioned in his defamed articles, the said accused who is bound to answer the truth, with the intention to side track the impartial investigation by the team, want only given false and fabricated evidence and mislead answers against the truth is the charge against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner who is a reputed columnist was witch-hunted as he had written a critical article about the manner of conducting the investigation in a sensational Sankararaman murder case. 5. He would further submit that the columnist has just expressed his view about the course of investigation. The petitioner was summoned under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., to appear before the investigating sleuth relating to the disputed articles written by him in the newspapers and magazines, but he had modestly informed the investigating sleuth that he was not aware of the current day-to-day affairs of Sankaramadam. 6. The petitioner was summoned under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., to appear before the investigating sleuth relating to the disputed articles written by him in the newspapers and magazines, but he had modestly informed the investigating sleuth that he was not aware of the current day-to-day affairs of Sankaramadam. 6. He would further argue that if the charge-sheet is taken into account in the background of the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer, it does not implicate him for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner should not undergo the ordeal of trial, when there is no legal evidence available to pin him down and also when the case has been completely foisted to wreak vengeance against him, for he had provided a critical approach to the investigation of the said murder case. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused has chosen not to answer certain questions relating to certain important aspects he had dealt in the controversial articles written by him in the daily and also in the journal. It is his submission that the statement of the photographer who produced the cassette relating to the question and answer session conducted by the investigating sleuth concerning the controversial articles and the C.D. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram would go to show that the petitioner has committed various offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Press and Registration of Registration of Books Act, 1867. At any rate, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed when the investigating sleuth has prima facie come to the conclusion, based on the materials he collected that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. 8. It is pertinent to extract Secs.4 and 14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for the better appreciation of the point in issue relating to Sec.14 of the said Act. Sec.4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is as follows: “Keeper of printing press, to make declaration: (1) No person shall within India, keep in his possession any press for the printing of books or papers, who shall not have made and subscribed the following declaration before the District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such press may be: I, A.B., declare that I have a press for printing at-”. And this last blank shall be filled up with a true and precise description of the place where such press may be situate. As often as the place where a press is kept is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary: Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding sixty days and the place where the press is kept after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate referred to in Sub-sec.(1), no new declaration shall be necessary if- (a) a statement relating to the change is furnished to the said Magistrate within twenty-four hours thereof; and (b) the keeper of the press continues to be the same. Sec.14 of The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is as follows: “Any person who shall, in making any or other statement ‘under the authority of this Act, make a statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished by fine not exceeding, two thousand rupees, and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months-.” 9. The allegation as regards Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 as against the petitioner is that the petitioner made a false statement which he believed to be false in the articles written by him both the dailies and in the journal. 10. The statement referred to under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 directly refers to the “statement” as contemplated in the proviso I found under Sec.4 of the said Act. The printing press owner is bound to declare the place of printing press before the District-Magistrate. But if the place where the press was located was changed, for a period not exceeding 60 days and the present place where the press is kept after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the said Magistrate, a “statement” relating to the change of place of press is sufficient and no new “declaration” shall be necessary. This is the purport of Sec.4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. This is the purport of Sec.4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. While furnishing the statement as contemplated under Sec.4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, if the owner of the press has given any false statement, he is liable to be prosecuted under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The punishable provision of law as contemplated under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration-of Books Act, 1867 does not apply to any false statement made in the articles written by the columnist either in the daily news paper or in the journal. 11. The above discussion would go to show that without properly adverting to the import of the penal provision and the source of such penal provision found in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the petitioner has been wrongly charged based on total misconception of law for offence under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. 12. Sec.176 of I.P.C., contemplates punishment for omission to furnish information on any subject to any public servant. Sec.179 stipulates punishment for refusal to answer public servant authorized to question the person concerned. The punishment has been contemplated for fake evidence intentionally given at any stage of judicial proceeding under Sec.179 read with Sec.193 of I.P.C. 13. It is relevant to refer to certain portions found in the complaint lodged against the petitioner herein. “None else than the Additional Superintendent of Police is the Chief Investigating officer investigating the sensational case called Sankararaman murder case. The Chief Investigating Officer in the complaint would say that having examined many vital witnesses tracked down the real culprits and apprehended them. The investigation proceeded on a right path and as a result of which there was a major break through, which culminated in identifying the main conspirators behind the gruesome murder. While so, the petitioner started writing several articles in the English daily and also in the Tamil magazine making certain revelations about the functioning of Kanchimutt.” 14. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has provided certain new facts in the article written by him. When the petitioner was summoned investigating the provision under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., he refused to divulge certain concealed information within his special knowledge. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has provided certain new facts in the article written by him. When the petitioner was summoned investigating the provision under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., he refused to divulge certain concealed information within his special knowledge. The accused also refused to answer many questions posed by the investigating team authorised to question the petitioner in the interest of fair investigation, it has been further alleged in the complaint. 15. One can very easily note the self-contradiction found in the text of allegation culled out and quoted above. On the one hand, the Chief Investigating Officer would say that he was proceeding on the right track and on such course, he could arrest real culprits. The conspirators behind the chilling murder could also be tracked down due to the major breakthrough during the course of investigation. 16. The petitioner had returned articles in the Indian Express, Dhinamani and Tuklak, expressing his point of view as a journalist. Inked by the same, it appears the Chief Investigating Officer summoned him under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., and started grilling him which of course did not take the Investigating Officer anywhere. 17. Usually, the journalist collects information from furtive sources and publishes it for the public consumption. No one can attribute special knowledge to the journalist about the information he has adverted to in the article. 18. The Investigating Officer in this case has chosen to examine as many as 17 witnesses. Unfortunately none of the witnesses has spoken to during the course of investigation about the nature of questions fielded to the petitioner and his refusal to come out openly with the real facts and circumstances. The only witness who has spoken to the examination of the petitioner herein after summoning under Sec.160 of Crl.P.C., is the photographer Mr.K.A.Thirumurthy, S/o. A.V.Arunachalam (P.W.9). He has simply stated that certain questions were fielded to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to answer those questions. It appears the Investigating Officer recovered two video cassettes relating to the questions fielded and the alleged aggressive posture and adamant refusal exhibited by the petitioner. The said cassette was not produced along with the charge sheet. In fact when the petitioner sought a copy of this said cassette, his request was conveniently negatived by the Investigating officer. The controversial articles also were not produced along with the charge sheet. 19. The said cassette was not produced along with the charge sheet. In fact when the petitioner sought a copy of this said cassette, his request was conveniently negatived by the Investigating officer. The controversial articles also were not produced along with the charge sheet. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the video cassettes were already produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram. He would further submit that those controversial articles written by the petitioner was not denied by him. When the respondent wants to rely upon certain important materials and documents, the copy of the same will have to be served on the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be kept in the dark till the commencement of the trial. 20. The second witness Mr.K.Viswanathan cited by the prosecution has stated in the statement recorded under Sec.161, Crl.P.C., that he came to know through some source that the accused Gurumurthy refused to answer certain questions fielded to him by the Investigating Officer. His statement reflects hearsay version. 21. The third witness Mr.Sathiyamurthy would say that the petitioner has published certain articles to misdirect the Police from the right direction of investigation and also to confuse the public. Such a version does not have any relevance to the core charge against the accused in this case. 22. It is the version of the sixth witness Mr.S.Venkatesan and the eighth witness Mr.Anbalagan that the petitioner has falsely stated in his article that the real culprit was roaming around. This statement has no relevance to the charge faced by the petitioner. 23. One Mr.M.Karthikeyan cited as seventh witness also would state that the article written by the petitioner has the potential to misinform the public about the Sankararaman murder case. 24. The tenth witness Mr.G.Thiyagaran would state that the article was scripted and published by the petitioner based on some surmises and conjectures. The statement of other witnesses do not have much relevance to the point in issue before this Court. 25. The fact remains that even before the article was published by the petitioner, the investigating sleuth has got material information in the shape of First Information Report and also arrested the accused concerned. It is not as if the petitioner with held vital information which led the investigating sleuth to grope in the dark. 25. The fact remains that even before the article was published by the petitioner, the investigating sleuth has got material information in the shape of First Information Report and also arrested the accused concerned. It is not as if the petitioner with held vital information which led the investigating sleuth to grope in the dark. It is the consistent case of the Special Investigating Officer that he had got vital information, arrested the accused and tracked down the conspirators also on account of some breakthrough in the case. Therefore, the question of withholding any vital information does not arise in this case. 26. Further, there should have been an intentional breach of obligation to furnish information. Where the public servant has already obtained the information from other sources, the penal provision under Sec.176, I.P.C., does not get attracted. 27. When the petition was not informed even at the stage where the charge sheet has been filed before the Court as to what were the questions fielded to him and what were the important information he had withheld, he cannot be compelled to face the trial for offence under Sec.179, I.P.C. Likewise what are the false statements he has given to the Special Investigating Officer was not divulged either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet. No witness has also spoken to the text of false statements before the Special Investigating Officer. So, there is no prima facie cases as against the petitioner for offence under Sec.179 read with. Sec.193 as shown by the respondent Police. 28. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a defamation case on the very same set of facts and circumstances had been filed recently against the petitioner. Further the petitioner is protected under law not to give any statement incriminating him. The whole garnet of charge sheet refers to burking of information relating to the controversial articles he had written, but it does not relate to the information he with held in connection with the murder of Sankararaman. The petitioner is not supposed to answer any questions relating to the articles he had written to the Special Investigating Officer who was investigating the case of murder. But he is bound to answer only with regard to the incident of murder of Sankararaman. He had answered that he knew nothing about the murder. The petitioner is not supposed to answer any questions relating to the articles he had written to the Special Investigating Officer who was investigating the case of murder. But he is bound to answer only with regard to the incident of murder of Sankararaman. He had answered that he knew nothing about the murder. It has become the practice of Investigating Officers dealing with sensational cases to furnish information surreptitiously to the Press facilitating them to conduct extra judicial media trial. Some columnists of sterner stuff come to the rescue of victims of such trials which verification shade. Humiliating it is to pounce on such columnists slapping in their face criminal punch. 29. The petitioner who is a columnist has simply expressed his view based on the information he collected from certain sources. The person who does not have personal knowledge about the information cannot be asked to come out with such information. Nothing comes out of nothing. 30. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner to nullify the First Information Report lodged against him is pending. As the charge sheet has been filed and the case has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge sheet. The pendency of the above writ petition does disentitle him to approach this Court. 31. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no prime facie was made out against the petitioner with the available materials collected by the investigating agency to implicated the petitioner for offences under Secs.176, 179 read with 193, I.P.C., and Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. When there is no foundation for the case against the petitioner, he cannot be directed to undergo the ordeal of trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the whole proceedings in Crl.C.No.83 of 2005. 32. In the result, the criminal proceedings in Crl.C.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6747 of 2005 is closed.