In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, to seek quashing of a summoning order dated 12-12-2018 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), along with the entire criminal proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh took note of the observations made by the Supreme Court and refused to interfere in the case while rejecting the application.
Applicants 1 to 3 were working as Executive Editor, Crime Reporter, and Assistant News Editor, respectively, in the TV channel News18. It was submitted that the Executive Editor was not involved in the broadcast of news on News18 on 29-09-2017, and that News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh, as well as News18 Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, were owned and operated by TV18 Broadcast Limited.
In a complaint dated 28-05-2018, it was stated that the complainant (opposite party 2) was an IPS officer of the UP Police and was working as IG, STF, UP on 20-09-2017 when a news broadcast was shown on News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh, which projected that the complainant was involved in earning illicit money from criminals, which led to a loss in his reputation.
Another matter was covered by various newspapers and news channels, wherein it was reported that the mastermind of the Nabha jail break was arrested by the UP Police and later released by a senior UP Police officer in exchange for money. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh, ordered an inquiry to be conducted by the Additional Director General of Police, UP (complainant), which concluded on 28-09-2017, and the complainant was exonerated of all charges.
It was contended that News18 had conducted fair, unbiased, and bona fide reporting of the entire incident and that it did not attribute any role to the complainant in setting the alleged mastermind free.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s attention had also been invited to the publication by way of a Special Leave to Appeal (SLP), and that by an order dated 05-03-2024, the Supreme Court observed that the Inquiry Report by which the complainant was exonerated was considered by the ACJM while passing the summoning order and found no error in the summoning order.
In light of the facts, the Court stated that it could not weigh the evidence and that a trial was required. It was said that under Section 482 of the CrPC, this Court could not record whether the applicants were innocent. The Court said that it was not required to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings.
Thus, taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s observations in the said SLP, the Court opined that the case required trial and refused to interfere in the case in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Appearances:
For Applicants – Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra
For Opposite Party(s) – G.A., Mr. Ishan Baghel, Mr. Mohd. Khalid
