Extortion Case Against Power TV Channel MD: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR & Interfere In Police Investigation [Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (05th November) refused to interfere in an on-going police investigation and quash FIR filed against the Managing Director of Power TV (a Kannada TV Channel) Rakesh Shetty for alleged extortion.The Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing the plea of Power TV Managing Director Rakesh Shetty seeking quashing of the Complaint and FIR dated...
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (05th November) refused to interfere in an on-going police investigation and quash FIR filed against the Managing Director of Power TV (a Kannada TV Channel) Rakesh Shetty for alleged extortion.
The Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing the plea of Power TV Managing Director Rakesh Shetty seeking quashing of the Complaint and FIR dated 24.09.2020.
The Case against Power TV MD Rakesh Shetty
In the FIR, it was alleged that the Petitioner news channel (Power TV) has been running a program with regard to the allegations of corruption and illegal financial dealings, as well as interference in the day-to-day administration of the State Government by the family members of the present Chief Minister Sri. B. S. Yediyurappa.
Further, it was alleged that the first telecast of the program (by Power TV) with the title "Raja Parivarada Rochaka Vrutanta" was aired on 2.9.2020, containing a three-minute alleged audio conversation between Sri. B.S.Vijeyendra, s/o Sri. B.S.Yeddyurappa, and a reporter of Power TV.
Further, it was alleged that an audio clipping was put out in the public domain for the consumption of the people of the State, was an exposé with regard to the collection of Rs.12,00,00,000/- from one Chandrakantha Ramalingam (Respondent No.4/Ramalingam Construction Company Limited director), a contractor, who was carrying out works with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) by one Sri. Shashidhara Maradi, the grandson of the Chief Minister.
Allegedly, under the very same head, another episode was telecast on 17.09.2020 with regard to certain amounts of money alleged to be collected from the same contractor Sri. Chandrakant Ramalingam (Ramalingam Construction Company Limited director) by the Chief Minister's son and grandson.
Subsequently, Chandrakantha Ramalingam (Respondent No.4) on September 24, in a police complaint, accused Power TV MD Rakesh Shetty of forcing him into saying that he made payments to politicians for the purpose of obtaining contracts, and he further complained that the conversations were recorded.
Thereafter, Bengaluru Police Crime Branch began investigations into the allegations of extortion filed against Shetty him by Chandrakanth Ramalingam.
Arguments put forth
The Counsel of the Petitioner argued before the Court that the Complaint, which has been filed is motivated, and is at the instance of the family members of the present Chief Minister inasmuch as the filing of the same is post the telecast by Petitioner's channel.
It was also argued that the Complaint was filed on account of political vendetta, and "It is only in order to stifle the voice of the free press that the present complaint has been filed since the news reported by the channel was unpalatable to the Chief Minister and his family"
Shetty's Counsel also argued before the Court that the investigating agency had retained the user name and password of social media/digital platform like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation and equipment of TV channel was seized by the investigation agency.
It was also alleged that Ramalingam (the Contractor/Complainant) "had voluntarily provided and shared the details of the manner in which money was illegally and by corrupt means obtained from him by the family members of Chief Minister became a turncoat under pressure and influence of the ruling class in the State".
On the other hand, the state government argued that there is no political vendetta in the matter and the allegations made are genuine grievances of the Complainant.
It was also argued that the Complaint as filed "is not influenced by the family members of the present Chief Minister. Hence, there is no manner of political vendetta. The Complaint is a genuine grievance of the Complainant."
The Advocate General further argued that "if at all the Complaint is alleged to have been initiated on the ground of the said telecast, then the police authorities would have removed the videos since such videos are still continuing to be available on Facebook and YouTube, the same would indicate that the Complaint and the investigation is not at the behest of the Chief Minister. The investigation has been carried out in the normal course on the basis of a complaint filed by Respondent No.4 (Chandrakant Ramalingam)."
Court's Order
"An investigating agency can not retain the user name and password of social media/digital platform like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation, the investigation agency can download the data required from such account and thereafter has to give back the changed credentials to the person who owns the said social media. The Respondents are therefore directed to handover new login credentials of the Facebook and Youtube account of the Petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order", the Court ruled.
The Bench further said, "I am of the considered opinion that it is only the data in such servers which are required for the purpose of verification by investigating agency, the hard disk could always be cloned and after retaining the original hard disk the cloned hard disk along with servers, laptops, etc could always be returned."
Further the Court said,
Lastly, the Petition was partly allowed and the petitioner was given the liberty to approach the trial Court by filing an application under Section 451 r/w 452 of Cr.P.C. for return of the equipment seized.
The Court directed that the application would be considered by the trial Court in terms of the High Court's Order and the seized items to be returned to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as the trial Court may deem fit and proper.
Case title – Rakesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.11169 of 2020]
[Read Order]