AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are considered together as the subject matter pertains to certain alleged defamatory statements contained in the weekly magazine, "The Week", dated 20th September 2009, attributed to the petitioners who are the accused in the complaint that is filed, against them. The brief facts as may be relevant to each of the petitioners, is as follows: In Criminal Petition No. 7499/2010, the petitioner is named as Accused No. 7 in the complaint lodged by Messrs. Oblapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Bellary and one Shri. Gali Janardhan Reddy, who is said to be the Promoter-Director of the first complainant, and who was incidentally the Minister for Tourism and Infrastructure Development, Government of Karnataka, who is represented by one B.V. Srinivasa Reddy, in the complaint. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7503/2010 is a private limited company which is arrayed as Accused No. 6 in the aforesaid complaint. The said company is engaged in mining operations and exports minerals in the course of its business. The alleged defamatory statements in the publication aforesaid is also attributed to the said petitioner. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7690/2010 who is arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the aforesaid complaint, is a former Member of Parliament from Bellary District, against whom also, defamatory statements are attributed. In Criminal Petition No. 10292/2011, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused No. 5 and Accused No. 8. Accused No. 8 is said to have died during the pendency of the proceedings. Accused No. 5, who is the son of Accused No. 8, is engaged in mining activity in Bellary District and is accused by the complainants of having made defamatory statements, in the complaint.
The gist of the complaint is as follows: The complainant No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in mining iron ore and has its operations around the district of Anantpur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and claims that its annual total income runs into several hundred crores. Complainant No. 2 is said to be the Promotor-Director of Complainant No. 1, as already stated and it is claimed that he enjoys a high reputation in the business as well as the political arena. The complainants are aggrieved by the article published in the aforesaid weekly under the caption "Rape of Bellary - Mining lords redraw Karnataka - Andhra border, drain government" authored by one N. Bhanutej, a Correspondent for the weekly and it is alleged that the contents of the article are false and the same has been printed, published and circulated at the behest and on the instructions of the petitioners herein and it is claimed that the petitioners are inimically disposed towards Complainant No. 1 and that the article is the outcome of a political vendetta. It is contended that the so called investigative report, which the article claims to be, is misleading and has the effect of bringing down the reputation of Complainant No. 2 in the eyes of the general public and the people of the State of Karnataka and elsewhere in the country and throughout the world, since it is claimed that Complainant No. 2 is known by persons in various other countries of the world with whom he has business and personal relationships. It is stated that since the Assembly of Karnataka was in session, at the time the article was published, the same was timed in such a way so as to cause maximum damage to the reputation of Complainant No. 2. It is denied that there is any encroachment of various mines in Karnataka by Complainant No. 1 and the alleged material in the possession of the author of the article namely, particulars of any survey conducted by one Dr. U.V. Singh and reports of the Lokayukta confirming the alleged interstate border violation are said to be false and concocted and that the matter is subjudice before this Court, in its writ jurisdiction, in several pending writ petitions as well as in pending proceedings before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The several allegations contained in the article of violation said to have been committed by Complainant No. 1 are specifically denied. It is claimed that the article is aimed at influencing the mind of the Court in various pending cases not only before the High Courts but also before the Apex Court in so far as the complainants are concerned and that the accused are also liable for contempt of Court. It is in this vein that the complaint had been lodged. The Court of Magistrate, Bellary has opined that from a reading of the article, a prima facie case was disclosed which if established, would be punishable u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'' for brevity), and has taken cognisance for an offence punishable u/s 500 IPC and has directed registration of a criminal case by its order dated 26.02.201. It is that which is under challenge in the present petitions.
This Court in the first instance, had issued notice to the respondents and after the respondents had entered appearance through counsel, an interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted.
Heard the learned Senior Advocate Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, appearing for the counsel for the petitioners. The learned Senior Advocate would firstly draw attention to the contents of the article with particular reference to statements attributed to each of the petitioners, which are as follows:
- Rahul N. Baldota (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7499/2010):
Even major industrialists in Bellary feel threatened. Minerals Sales Private Limited (MSPL), one of the largest private sector iron ore mining companies in India, is helpless as two smaller mine owners adjoining their property "steal our ore". "Only mines that have submitted to them (Reddy brothers) are being allowed to work. They are encouraged to encroach on neighbouring mines. Those of us who are not willing to give up our legal right are not allowed to work. We are not getting permits though all our papers are right. My mines have been lying idle for months, and they are looting my ore even as we speak," said MSPL executive Director Rahul N. Baldota.
xxx
- S.K. Modi, representing M/s. Bellary Iron Ores (P) Ltd. (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7503/2010):
Many mine owners succumbed to his might. But two mine owners in Karnataka - S.K. Modi of Bellary Iron Ore, whose mines were encroached on the border near the Sugalamma hillock, and Tapal Narayana Reddy, whose Tumti Mines were encroached at Thimmappanagudda hillock - approached the court. It was the last resort.
Janardhana Reddy''s expansionist designs are aided by officials in Andhra Pradesh. In April, Bellary Iron Ore owner Modi approached the Supreme Court alleging violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act by Andhra forest department officials in connivance with OMC, which has two mining leases near Bellary Iron Ore. Modi sought a field survey in five mines around the Sugalamma hillock. The court has fixed October 5 as the deadline for the survey report.
xxx
- K.C. Kondaiah (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7690/2010):
There is no law and order in Bellary. We are all helpless because nobody can match their (Reddys'') wealth.
xxx
- Tapal Ganesh (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 10292/2011):
But when IBM set out to carry out the court directive, it met with non-cooperation from the Andhra side. The action-taken report filed by IBM regional controller of mines Ivan Khess and controller of mines (south zone) Dr. B.P. Sinha before the Karnataka High Court in June 2009 stated that the survey was carried out between May 16 and May 18, 2009. However, contrary to the court''s instructions, the surveyor from the Andhra Pradesh Geospatial Data Centre (APGDC), Survey of India, took part in the survey only as an "observer". Besides, while Tumti mine was surveyed, the area leased to OMC was not, as the Andhra side did not provide any documents to the survey team.
This is the respect Janardhana Reddy shows to a High Court order. It is shocking that the other departments, too, violated the High Court direction, succumbing to his pressure," said Tapal Ganesh, son of Narayana Reddy.
xxx
It is contended that the article read as a whole would indicate that apart from the petitioners, statements made by various persons including authorities such as the Lokayukta, are profusely quoted throughout and other details are furnished which cannot be attributed to the petitioners. If read in context, the statements attributed to the petitioner cannot be said to be defamatory, even assuming that the statements can be attributed to the petitioners. The complaint also does not specify the defamatory statement or statements attributable to each of the petitioners, especially in so far as Complainant No. 10 is concerned, which is apparent from the extracts of the alleged statements attributed to the respective petitioners, in which event, even if all the allegations in the complaint go unrebutted, it cannot be said that there is any material to indicate that the petitioners have made defamatory statements against complainant No. 1 and therefore, the Court of Magistrate having taken cognisance and having issued process against the petitioners, is without any basis and is a mechanical exercise which causes prejudice to each of the petitioners. It is further contended that in so far as the second complainant is concerned, he has approached the court through a representative, which is impermissible in law. In terms of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), no court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC except upon a complaint made by persons aggrieved by the offence and it is only where such a person is under the age of 18 years, or is an idiot or lunatic, or is suffering from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who according to the local customs and manner, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, that some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. In the instant case, there is no preamble in the complaint indicating the reason as to why Complainant No. 2 is sought to be represented by another. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings by the Court in taking cognisance is vitiated, in so far as Complainant No. 2 is concerned. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would contend that neither at the instance of Complainant No. 1 nor on the allegations made on behalf of Complainant No. 2, can any case be sustained against the petitioners.
Nextly, attention is drawn to State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, in particular, Paragraph 108, which reads as follows:
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FAR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
And it is canvassed that the case of the petitioners would fall under at least five of the ingredients spelt out by the Supreme Court wherein it would be a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent power u/s 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. It is firstly contended that allegations made in the complaint taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. Secondly, that the allegations in the complaint vis-�-vis the offending article, do not disclose a cognisable offence justifying an investigation by the police. Thirdly, that the allegations in the complaint of the petitioners being responsible for the publication of the article in a reputed National weekly, is inherently improbable and that no prudent person could reach a conclusion on the basis of the allegations and a reading of the article that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. Fourthly, in view of the prohibition u/s 199 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate having taken cognisance, vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also contended that the allegations of each of the petitioners being motivated by malice and an ulterior motive of vengeance and business rivalry, in having made statements attributed to them in the article, would not be tenable in the light of there being abundant material from independent and unimpeachable sources of gross violation committed by the complainants including the office of the Lokayukta and certain subsequent events where Complainant No. 2 is in fact remanded to judicial custody as on the date, of which the learned Senior Advocate would submit that judicial notice be taken of the same in holding that for all of the above reasons, there is no case made out against the petitioners and that the Court of Magistrate was not justified in taking cognisance and issuing process against the petitioners. It is further pointed out that the Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7503/2010 - Bellary Iron Ores is a Private Limited Company and it is inconceivable that the company as such is capable of committing an offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC. Having regard to the nature of the offence, it would not be conceivable that the Company as such could commit the same and therefore, on the face of it, it would demonstrate that the Court below has failed to take this circumstance into consideration before mechanically proceeding to issue process against the company which is necessarily represented by a person and thereby causes prejudice.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants would seek to highlight the specific statements attributed to each of the petitioners and would submit that the same are certainly defamatory. He would therefore submit that the Court below has proceeded on a prima facie test in issuing process and even if the contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted that there is no case made out, the petitioners are in a position to urge the same before the Magistrate at the appropriate time and it would be premature to enter upon the merits of the case at this point of time in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. In so far as the contention that there are no statements attributable to the petitioners made against Complainant No. 1 is concerned, may not be correct since the article addresses the business activity of mining in which the Complainant No. 1 is engaged and Complainant No. 2 is a Founder/Director of the said company. The allegations against Complainant No. 2 are necessarily against his business which is carried on by Complainant No. 1. Therefore, the ingredients of an offence committed against the company is apparent. This in any event, is a matter to be addressed on the merits of the case and cannot be summarily addressed in these proceedings. It is further contended that a complaint for an offence punishable u/s 500 can be brought by a person aggrieved. Both Complainant No. 1 and Complainant No. 2 are aggrieved by the statements attributed to the petitioners in the highly defamatory article which is the subject matter of the proceedings. It is therefore contended that the endeavour on the part of the learned Senior Advocate to claim that the present case on hand does not make out a case against the petitioners on the alleged grounds, is not entirely correct and would require this Court to proceed on certain presumptions which are yet to be tested in proceedings before the Magistrate. Therefore, it would result in grave injustice to the complainants if the petitioners are absolved of the violation of law and hence, would seek the dismissal of the complaint. In the backdrop of the above contentions and from a perusal of the material on record, having regard to the nature of the offence alleged and the circumstances that the article published in the magazine said to contain defamatory statements being the primary document which requires to be addressed in ascertaining whether a prima facie case was made out for the court below to have taken cognisance and having issued process and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having taken great pains to meticulously take this Court through the alleged offending article and the statements attributed to each of the petitioners at length, the task of this Court in arriving at a conclusion on this aspect of the matter has been made easy. As may be noticed, the author of the article has mentioned several sources of his information. Incidentally, the present petitioners are quoted as having made statements which the complainants contend, are motivated and the petitioners, either for political reasons or on account of business rivalry, have made those statements and have instigated the author to publish the articles. In this regard, the statement attributed to the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7499/2010 has been extracted hereinabove. It may be noticed that there is no reference made by the said petitioner either to Complainant No. 1 or Complainant No. 2 but the author has supplied the reference being to "Reddy brothers" which is shown in parenthesis. Therefore, it cannot on the face of it be concluded that the said petitioner has made any defamatory statement against either Complainant No. 1 or Complainant No. 2. In so far as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7503/2010 is concerned, the petitioner is a private limited company, no doubt represented by one S.K. Modi to whom there is a reference as extracted hereinabove in two places in the article. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are any defamatory statements which could be attributed either to the petitioner - company or its representative who is compelled to appear before the Court. In so far as the petitioner in Crl.P.7690/2010 is concerned, here against the reference to "Reddys" is the author''s doing and it cannot be readily said that the statement contained is with reference to either Complainant No. 1 or Complainant No. 2. In so far as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 10292/2011 is concerned, there is a reference to directions by the Court and of alleged violation by Complainant No. 2, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate, since Complainant No. 2 has not chosen to prefer the complaint in his own capacity but has been represented by a third person. The Court having taken cognisance of the same, is in the first place, an irregularity. Secondly, the statement attributed to the petitioner cannot on the face of it be termed as defamatory as there is no denial that there are pending proceedings and the petitioner has merely expressed that there is a violation of the court order. This cannot be construed as being a defamatory statement. Therefore, there is not much difficulty in holding that having regard to the general allegations in the complaint as regards the mala fides of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the court below was justified in issuing process against these petitioners. The consequence of pending criminal proceedings, especially against businessmen who are required to frequently travel abroad is one instance which may be cited as an immediate inconvenience and hardship that would occasion in view of process being issued, without a closer examination of the case. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have made out a case on the several grounds urged, warranting interference of this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The complaint against these petitioners would therefore stand quashed. Consequently, the process issued by the court below is set at naught.