THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5322 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of further proceedings against the petitioners-A1 and A2 in C.C.No.513 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners-A1 and A2 alleging offence under Section 499 IPC r/w 34 IPC before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.513 of 2008. According to the complainant, who is an Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistic, Osmania University, on 24.02.2007, a group of 15 to 20 students along with some antisocial elements entered his chamber in the University and when he is discussing with one of his students, the above said group all of a sudden assaulted him abusing in filthy language and also put the complainant to shame and they even pushed the complainant out of the premises. It is further alleged that the mob beat him with hands and legs and he was rescued by the timely intervention of the police. The complainant alleges that the accused is telecasting the news item to the news channel on 24.02.2007 and 25.02.2007 with the caption ‘vidyardhini to assistant professor Ansari Sarasam’, red handed ga pattukunna ABVP karyakartalu’ ‘Osmani lo Ansari rasalilalu’, which was highly defamatory in its content. According to the complainant, the accused have in collusion with the group of students, who are opposite to him for the complainant’s support to minorities, have telecasted the false news item tarnishing the reputation and image of the complainant. 4. The main contention of the petitioners-A1 and A2 is that the same person-P.Kiran is shown as A1 but described differently and as per the averments in the complaint, it was News Reporter who was responsible for the alleged telecast of defamatory news item and the said Reporter is not impleaded and there are no valid grounds to proceed against the petitioners. 5. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that A1, who is shown as P.Kiran, was described as Director, Gemini news, A2 is the Gemini news channel, represented by its news Director-P.Kiran. From the contents of the complaint, it is not clarified whether A1 is the Director of the channel or news Director. The complaint does not also disclose as to the role of A1 or A2 in telecasting the disputed news item. As per the averments in paragraph No.7 of the complaint, A1 is a Reporter of A2 and A1 was present at the time the incident took place. The complainant himself is not shown as to the identity of the accused and whether P.Kiran is only a Reporter or a news Director or Director of the channel itself. The alleged role of A1 or A2 as a Director or news Director of the channel is nowhere disclosed in the complaint nor any overt acts are attributed as against them. If according to the complainant, it was the Reporter of the channel who was responsible for the alleged defamatory content of the news item that was telecasted, it is open to the complainant to proceed against the said Reporter in accordance with law. Without there being any specific allegation against the petitioners-A1 and A2 and without attributing any role to the petitioners and not disclosing as to how and in what manner they are responsible for the telecast of the alleged news item, further proceedings against them would only be an abuse of process of law. The complaint does not disclose any prima facie case as against the petitioners-A1 and A2 so as to proceed against them. The complaint does not also allege that the petitioners had in any way participated in the telecast of the alleged defamatory news item or permitted its telecast with requisite mens rea. It is open to the complainant to proceed against the appropriate persons, who are responsible for the alleged telecast of defamatory news item in accordance with law. Insofar as the present complaint is concerned, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 2008 and they are accordingly quashed. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2011. Tsy