Ch. RAMOJI RAO, CHAIRMAN RAMOJI GROUP OF COMPANIES AND ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

_I_ A CH. RAMOJ! RAO, CHAIRMAN RAMOJI GROUP OF COMPANIES ANDANR. _v._ STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ## B OCTOBER 13, 2006 [ ARIJ!T PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:_ c _s.482-Application before High Court for quashing proceedings pursuant to complaint ulss. I 99 and 200_ - _Complaint alleging a telecast made on T. V. channel with intention to harm reputation of Chief Minister and other fimctionaries of State-High Court declining to interfere-Before Supreme Court defence pleading that there was no such intention behind the_ D _telecast-Direction given to the channel to telecast with the clarification whereupon proceedings will be withdrawn-Penal Code. 1860-s.499._ A complaint under s.200 read with s.199 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the State against the appellants stating that they, with a common intention to harm the reputation of the Government, its administration, the Chief Minister, E several other Ministers and public servants, made a telecast on E TV-2 channel, which was _per se_ defamatory. Their petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said proceedings was dismissed by the High Court holding that a _primafacie_ case existed and, therefore, no interference was called for. In the present appeal filed before this Court, submissions of the F appellants ultimately boiled down to the one that they had no intention in any manner to harm reputation of the Chief Minister, other Ministers or the officials, and, therefore, continuance of the proceedings would not be in public interest. G Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Public interest would be best served in directing the TV channel to telecast the clarification stating that the earlier telecast was not intended in any manner to defame or harm the reputation of the Chief Minister, Ministers and officials and, if it has been construed that way, to clarify that H 232 CH. RAMOJI RAO, CHAIRMAN RAMOJI GROUP OF COMPANIES "· ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [PASA VAT, J J233 ·the same was not the intent and purpose of the broadcast. On such broadcast, A it was stated at the Bar that all the proceedings relating to the broadcast would be withdrawn. 1234-B-FI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 050 of 2006. B From the Final Order dated 27.6.2006 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 2812 of 2006. Parag P. Tripathi, Neelima Tripathi and K.V. Mohan for the Appellants. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, P. Vinay Kumar, C. Sindhu Kumari and D. C Bharathi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. D Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C. '). The prayer was to quash the proceedings in CC No. 2/2006 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented E by Special Public Prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section I 99 Cr.P.C. stating that with a common intention intending to harm the reputation of the Government, of its administration, of the Chief Minister, several ministers and several public servants made a telecast on E TV-2 channel with commentary knowing fully that the same would harm reputation F of public functionaries. The voice over the commentary was that of the appellant no.2. Many expressions and words used in. commentary are per se defamatory. The appellants filed a petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The stand was that the complaint was nothing but gross abuse of process of Court. The respondent opposed the application stating that on the facts alleged no interference in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was called for. With G reference to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') the High Court dismissed the application, holding that a _prima facie_ case existed and, therefore, no interference was called for. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, leaned H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 234 A counsel for the appellants submitted that actually there was no intention in any manner to harm reputation of the Chief Minister, of the Ministers or the officials and, therefore, continuance of the proceedings would not be in pub I ic interest. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that B after showing the Chief Minister, ministers and the public officials in poor light, the appellants cannot take the plea of innocence. After hearing learned counsel at some length, we think that public interest would be best served in directing following broadcast to be made in C the concerned TV channel by \he appellants within a period of one week from today. The telecast would be as follows:- D E "A news telecast had been made by the channels E TV-2 on 22.11.2005 covering the visit of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh alongwith some of his ministers and officials to Putta Parthi Sai Baba. The voice over commentary for the said telecast was provided by Smt. Kalyani. It is clarified on behalfofchannel E TV-2 that the content of the voice over commentary was not intended in any manner to defame or harm the reputation of the Chief Minister or his entourage of ministers and officials. If it has been construed that way, it is clarified that same was not the intent and purpose of the broadcast." Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that to show the _bonafides_ the appellants shall make the necessary broadcast within the time indicated. F Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that all proceedings relating to the broadcast shall be withdrawn and shall not be pursued. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. RP. Appeal disposed of.