IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7727 OF 2009 Between: 1. The Chairman, TV-5 2. S. Mallikharjunarao ……Petitioners – Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7727 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, accused Nos.1 & 2 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.222 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pitapuram, filed by the complainant G.S. Prakash Rao, respondent No.2 herein, for the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC 2. Heard both sides. 3. The allegation against the petitioners, Chairman of TV-5 television channel and its reporter respectively, by the complainant is that defamatory material was telecast against his personal character in their television channel. The allegations and the imputations include exhibition of a clipping of alleged participation in sex of the complainant with a woman. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate without looking into the alleged videograph, has taken cognizance of the case on the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant alone. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, there was no necessity for the learned Magistrate to look into the videograph clipping for taking cognizance of the case. The allegations in the complaint and sworn statement of the complainant constituted sufficient material to take cognizance of the case. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Muzaffar Ali Sajjad & others v. State of A.P. & Others[1], where it was held that issuance of process without holding preliminary enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not legal. But, the above decision is of a case under Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and Section 10 of that Act contemplated a specific enquiry, which is not there in the case on hand. It is a case based on documentary and videographic evidence. Hence, there was nothing wrong in taking cognizance of the case on the basis of the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no ground to entertain this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 8, 2009. PV [1] (2004)4 SCC 764