Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 821 (AP)

Tankasala Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2010-08-26

A.GOPAL REDDY

body2010
ORDER This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-A3 in CC No.135/ 2004 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasarapet, Guntur District. 2. The petitioner-A3 along with others was facing trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Chief Editor of Vartha Telugu Daily Newspaper. A news item was published in Guntur Edition on 18.3.2003 stating under the main caption "Rs.1.76 crores cherina miller mosam" (cheating by miller upto Rs.l. 76 crores) and under the sub-caption "Moodu lorreela dhanyam dopidi" (looted three lorries of paddy"), wherein it was alleged that the complainant and Kotha Purnaiah entered unlawfully into the godown, threatened the persons present there and looted three lorry loads of paddy and with that effect a case in Cr.No.33/2003 of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 380 IPC, in which Kotha Purnaiah and Sreenivasa Rao were shown as accused. 4. The complainant-second respondent alleging though the was not concerned with the said crime, news item published mentioning the complainant's name created great mental agony to him and he is defamed in the eyes of news readers and it effects his reputation in the society filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet against the petitioner herein and three others, for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint and issued process after recording the sworn statement of the complainant. 5. Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when a similar news item was published in Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily Newspaper in Guntur Edition on 18.3.2003 under the caption "Muudu Lorryila Dhanyam Apharana" one Sathula Subba Rao (the second respondent herein) filed a complaint against Andhra Bhoomi, in which Editor of the paper is shown as A2 in CC No. 134/ 2004 and A2 filed Crl. P No.2172/2006 before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against A2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC by order dated 12.7.2006 and prays that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is similarly placed with that of A2 in CC No.134/2004, are liable to be quashed. P No.2172/2006 before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against A2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC by order dated 12.7.2006 and prays that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is similarly placed with that of A2 in CC No.134/2004, are liable to be quashed. He further contends that in the absence of any allegations in the complaint that the news item was published with mala fide intention to defame the complainant, Section 500 IPC has not been attracted, and therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 6. This Court in Crl. P No.2172/2006 passed orders dated 12.7.2006 quashing the proceedings initiated against A2 in CC No. 134/2004 holding as follows: 7. This Court quashed the above' proceedings in ignorance of law as declared by the Supreme Court in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, AIR 1981 SC 1514 = 1981 (3) SCC 208 . In the said case, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, 2010(2) ALD (Crl.)-F-51 155 speaking for a majority in a Bench of three Judges held as under: approaches between male and female detenus ? Was the article intended to expose the despicable character of persons who were passing off as saintly leaders ? Was the article merely intended to provide salacious reading material for readers who had a peculiar taste for scandals ? These are Several other questions may arise for consideration, depending on the stand taken by the accused at the trial and how the complainant proposes to demolish the defence. Surely the stage for deciding these questions has not arrived yet. Answers to these questions at this stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions. 'good faith' and 'public good' are, as we said, questions of fact and matters for evidence. So, the trial must go on. (Para I 7) 8. "Defamation" has been defined under Section 499 IPC. It reads as under: "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person." 9. Since the person who published the news item has not taken due care before publishing the same. The question whether it was for public good is a question of fact, which has to be gone during the course of trial on the evidence adduced. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court can quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/ A3 without giving an opportunity to the second respondent-complainant to prove his case. 10. The criminal petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the disposal of the quashing petition and the trial Court has to decide the case on merit uninfluenced by any of the said observations.