Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the applicants, Journalists of the News 18 Channel, sought quashing of summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘Add. CJM’), a Single Judge Bench of Brij Raj Singh, J., held that at the given stage, mini trial was not required.
Background
In the present case, it was alleged that Opposite Party 2-Complainant was an IPS officer of the UP Police and was then working as Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh and was posted in Lucknow and on 20-9-2017, a news was telecast on News 18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh projecting that the Opposite Party 2 was involved in earning illicit money from criminals, which led to loss of his reputation. It was further alleged that the applicants had telecast the aforesaid news intentionally and deliberately.
The news was allegedly reported in various national newspapers that the mastermind of Nabha Jail Break was arrested by the UP Police and was later set free by a senior police officer of UP Police in lieu of money. This incident was also covered by renowned newspapers like The Tribune and Dainik Jagran on 18-9-2017.
The matter was allegedly reported in various newspapers in the country and several news channels, where-after, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow ordered that an inquiry be conducted by Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Uttar Pradesh to ascertain the veracity of the incidents reported by the media. The inquiry was concluded, and the Opposite Party 2 was exonerated from all the charges.
It was further alleged that allegations of the Opposite Party 2 were totally false as the news telecast by the Channel on 20-9-2017 at 7.45 pm did not contain any news that could defame the Opposite Party 2 and that the Channel had done fair, unbiased and bona fide reporting of the whole incident.
After recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200 of the CrPC and of two witnesses under Section 202 of the CrPC, the Trial Court issued the summons. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants approached the High Court.
The applicant’s counsel contended that the telecast material was different from the telecast of the other news channels. Per contra, counsel of Opposite Party 2 argued that after publication of the said news from the applicants’ channel, there was no denial of the publication of news by the applicants.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that in Amitabh Yash v. Manoj Rajan Tripathi, the Supreme Court held thar the Magistrate had given due consideration to the relevant documents including the Inquiry Report by which Opposite Party 2 was exonerated and then issued the summoning order. Considering that the same news was telecast in the news channel News 18 Punjab and it was serious allegation of Opposite Party 2 that his image is lowered down in the eyes of the other, the Court stated that that his statement as well as the witnesses’ statements were considered by the Magistrate before issuing summons.
Thus, the Court held that “this Court cannot weigh the evidences” and in the case at hand, “Certainly, the trial is required.” Further, the Court stated that at the given stage of the criminal proceeding, it could not conduct the mini trial.
The Court stated that it could not interfere in the present case and rejected the present application.
[Jyoti Kamal v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No. 3237 of 2020, decided on 29-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Nadeem Murtaza and Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent: G.A., Ishan Baghel, Mohd. Khalid, Advocates