CH. RAMOJI RAO, CHAIRMAN RAMOJI GROUP OF COMPANIES AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 13-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
CH. RAMOJ! RAO, CHAIRMAN RAMOJI GROUP OF COMPANIES
B
c
ANDANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
OCTOBER 13, 2006
[ ARIJ!T PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
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whereupon proceedings will be withdrawn-Penal Code. 1860-s.499.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
H
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
232
I
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be withdrawn. 1234-B-FI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.
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.
B
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.
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,
D
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
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.