IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9907 of 2009 DATE: 28.09.2010 Between: G.Bhaskar …… Petitioner And: The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9907 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A-1 is a press reporter in Vaartha daily newspaper. He is accused of offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 I.P.C along with three others in C.C. No.886 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhongir. The 2nd respondent/complainant was running Subhodaya School in Yadagirigutta. It is alleged that A-1 was also running another school by name Sri Vidya Niketan Patashala at Yadagirigutta. Subject matter of the complaint in the lower Court is news items in Vaartha daily newspaper on 08.11.2006, 11.11.2006, 12.11.2006, 18.11.2006 relating to a crime registered by the Yadagirigutta police. Report was given by A-2 Gundlapally Anitha against the 2nd respondent/complainant alleging that the 2nd respondent promising to marry her, developed intimacy with her and made her pregnant and ultimately cheated her by refusing to marry her. According to the 2nd respondent, A-1 being a rival school owner in the same place, kept A-2 under his influence and got criminal case filed through A-2 against the 2nd respondent with false allegations. It is further alleged that A-1 went beyond his role as press reporter and identified him with that case and lead procession in the village in support of A-2 and against the 2nd respondent, and freely distributed the newspaper on the date of publication, and read over the above press reports in the presence of students and teachers. It is further alleged that even though Section 376 I.P.C was not included in the crime registered against the 2nd respondent, it was reported in the newspaper that offence under that section was booked against the 2nd respondent. It is also complaint of the 2nd respondent that A-1 did not get explanation of the 2nd respondent published in Vaartha newspaper for the crime against him, even though other newspapers like Andhra Jyothi and Andhra Prabha have published explanation offered by the 2nd respondent for the crime registered against him. 2) At the outset it may be noted that in Journalism there are two types of reporting of news items, one by way of reporting a news item collected by the news reporter and the second one being comments of the news reporter on the issue being published in the paper. In so far as publication of news item to the effect that offence under Section 376 I.P.C was also registered against the 2nd respondent is concerned, it was not stated in the news publication that the said information was collected by A-1 personally. The publication reads that the Sub Inspector of Police by name K.Jagannadha Reddy of Yadagirigutta Police Station stated to the press that he had registered the case against the 2nd respondent under Section 376 I.P.C also apart from Section 420 I.P.C. If there is any falsity with regard to registration of the case for offence under Section 376 I.P.C, then A-1 cannot be liable for defamation as he is not author of it. According to the news item, it was K.Jagannadha Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, who is author of the same. Therefore, A-1 cannot be made liable for any incorrect or false statement or information said to have been given by K.Jagannadha Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police. The said Sub Inspector of police is not an accused herein. Secondly, failure to publish explanation offered by the 2nd respondent in Vaartha newspaper, is no offence of defamation under Section 500 I.P.C at all. It is not duty of the press who report crimes, to again report explanations of the accused persons. Failure to report explanations of the accused persons is not made an offence muchless under Section 500 I.P.C. 3) The allegation that A-1 freely distributed Vaartha newspaper in the village, cannot be an offence under Section 500 I.P.C, unless the news item published therein amounts to defamation. The allegations that A-1 instigated A-2 to give report to the police and that A-2 was under the influence of A-1 throughout and that A-1 lead the procession on this alleged crime registered against the 2nd respondent, are again no defamation per se. It is stated by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that ultimately the police after investigation referred the case against the 2nd respondent as false. Launching a false prosecution either by A-2 or at the instance of A-1 also will not amount to defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. At best, it may give a cause of action for prosecuting them for malicious prosecution in case required ingredients/statutory facts relating to that offence are made out by the 2nd respondent. It is stated by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that ultimately because of this agitation and reports in newspapers, the 2nd respondent had to close his school. It is evident that with the said result in mind, the 2nd respondent had filed the present complaint in the lower Court with an intention to wreck vengeance against A-1, who according to the complainant, was responsible for closure of his school. On perusal of the five news items published in Vaartha daily newspaper, I do not find A-1 as reporter making any comments on the news items. He had only reported the news without any comments. Further, he reported the statements said to have been given by Nagapuri Narasimha, Former M.P.T.C. Yagadigirigutta, Mitta Sankar Goud, Former Chairman of Single Window, Pallepati Balayya, Sarpanch, Mallapuram, V.Kistayya, Upasarpanch, Eluri Bala Narsayya, Former Sarpanch, Ramajipet, S.K.Gouse, Mandal General Secretary of T.R.S. Party and others. A-1 did not make any comments of his own in the said news items. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations in the complaint taken on their face value do not disclose any offences punishable under Section 500 I.P.C muchless Sections 501 and 502 I.P.C. 4) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing C.C. No.886 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhongir in so far as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 28, 2010 KSH