Petition by TV Today Network Limited to quash proceedings against it such as an order to file a non-cognizable offence, a non-cognizable report (NCR), and a chargesheet was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The contention of petitioner was that in a defamation proceeding, a police report by investigating the case and charging the accused with a chargesheet were prohibited and that a complaint could be filed using a subsequent application. The court however, had disapproved this argument saying that the lawful procedure followed was to the correctness of the law.
Case History
TV Today Network Limited versus. The case of State of Haryana, and another, was based on a news report, of the second respondent, Gopal Goyal Kumar. The second respondent had earlier sent a letter titled cease and desist notice to some of the companies such as Google and YouTube among others without sending a copy to the petitioner. Thereafter, a complaint of December 6, 2022, was registered with the police against the petitioner and other entities by accusing them of criminal conspiracy and defamation to destroy political and business career of the complainant.
The report of the District Attorney 15 exceeding ISO 22 dated December 2022 indicated that it did not find a cognizable offense but found a prima facie case of defamation. The second respondent thereafter approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking a direction to the police to proceed with investigation of the complaint.
For any queries or to publish an article or post or advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
Reasoning of the Court
The procedure that was followed in the case did not pass blame in the eyes of the court. Content of the complaint was observed to have revealed a non-cognizable offense and that a police inquiry is not possible without an order of Magistrate. The Magistrate, on hearing the complaints and other material facts passed a direction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register a non-cognizable case and investigate. Consequently, a chargesheet was received against the suspect at a later date and NCR No. 65 of 2022 was registered.
The court differentiates this case with the petitioner who used the provisions on the basis of reliance.
Kanhaiya Lal against. U.P. judgment. According to the court, the Kanhaiya Lal case rule that in cases that attract the law in Chapter XXI (including defaming), courts had no business under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of First Information Report (FIR). The court, however, explained that in the given case no FIR was put on record and no direction had been given to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The case was conducted on the basis of a complaint revealing a non-cognizable offense and an order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C.. Another judgment mentioned by the petitioner, also was found to be of the same opinion by the court. Harjit Singh Hassanpuri against. That the state of Punjab and to another, ought not to come into operation, to the facts of the case. It was on these grounds that the court held that the petition was not meritorious and it dismissed the petition.
