No Vicarious Liability For Criminal Offences In Absence Of Statute: Karnataka HC Quashes Defamation Case Against MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the quashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."

Case Background:

A complaint was registered against the petitioner and several others on 14-03-2012, on an incident that happened on 02-03-2012. It transpires that one of the prominent personalities was being brought before the competent criminal Court at Bangalore, at which point in time, Advocates gathered in large numbers and created ruckus.

This was telecast in television and electronic media, more particularly, in the channel in which the petitioner was the Managing Director along with other channels as breaking news wherein the Advocates were allegedly compared to hooligans.

On the said incident a complaint of mass defamation was registered by the respondent one K.Koteswar Rao, before the competent Court at Bellary. On the complaint being registered, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC on 15-03-2012. Pursuant to taking of cognizance, the Police investigated into the matter and criminal trial was set in motion by an order dated 01-09-2012.

Petitioners submissions:

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner submitted that rhe complaint registered was not even maintainable as the petitioner is only a Managing Director of the company. Neither the TV News Channel nor the company which owns the News channel is made an accused in the proceedings.

Further, it was said that the procedure prior to issuance of process as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is not complied with by the Magistrate as the complaint is registered at Bellary though the petitioner is a resident of Bangalore and therefore.

Finally it was said that there can be no mass defamation in criminal law as the complaint is not against the petitioner but against several others and it is not the case of the complainant that he is defamed but the entire community of Advocates is defamed. Therefore, even on merits there is no warrant for registration of any criminal case.

Respondents arguments:

Senior Advocate S.S.Yadrami for the complainant submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance there need not be application of mind. Procedure stipulated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service in every case as the allegation was against several of the TV channels and not only the petitioner.

Further, it was said that the complaint against defaming a community is entertainable and maintainable. The blame is on the petitioner as he was in the capacity of Managing Director of the channel and became vicariously liable for the offences committed by him.

Court findings:

The court noted that the complaint was registered invoking Section 500 of the Cr.P.C., without arraigning M/s Asianet News Network Private Limited or even Suvarna News, as the broadcaster of the programme is Asianet News Network Private Limited and not the petitioner. Therefore, at the outset, the complaint without making the company a party was not even maintainable as there can be no vicarious liability in IPC offences.

Relying on Supreme Court judgements the court held, "The submission of the learned senior counsel representing the respondent that for the acts of the company the petitioner would become vicariously liable, is unacceptable, as there cannot be vicarious liability in criminal law under the Indian Penal Code."

It added, "The complaint was not maintainable as it is blatantly obvious that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was privy to the publication of such imputation or that he was directly responsible for publication or airing of the incident as alleged."

Then the court also held that the complaint is registered by the respondent at Bellary whereas the petitioner is a resident of Bangalore. The TV channel in which the news was aired has its head office at Kerala, though the said channel is not a party.

It added, "Therefore, the accused does not reside within the jurisdiction over which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. Therefore, it was mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to have postponed issuance of process and to do so, only after holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. which admittedly has not been complied with by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the said point is also answered against the prosecution."

The bench then noted that the explanation given in Section 499 (IPC), to be defamation against a company or an association or collection of persons as such. "Therefore, it is a definite group of people and not an indefinite group of people," it said.

Further the bench opined, "Airing of news with regard to Advocates being described as aforesaid would not amount to defamation as it is made against an indefinite class of people. It is neither made against the association nor a definite collection of persons."

Following which it held, "This is a case where not a definite class of people is alleged to be defamed but an indefinite class. The very concept of defaming an indefinite class cannot lead to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC as the purport of Section 499 and the Explanation is that it should be against a definite class of people." Accordingly the court quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner- Chandrashekhar.

MAGISTRATE COURTS TO FOLLOW MANDATE OF SECTION 202 CRPC.

The bench noted that a plethora of cases are brought before it contending violation of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. It said "Not for nothing, did the amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. took place in the year 2006 by making it mandatory for the Magistrates to postpone issuance of process in the event the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate before whom the private complaint is registered."

Further it observed "Despite it being mandatory to be followed, the learned Magistrates seldom follow it. Therefore, the learned Magistrates should bear in mind that when a complaint is presented in which the accused reside beyond their jurisdiction, an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C."

It added "This direction is rendered in the light of the fact that the learned Magistrates seldom follow the mandate of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and straightaway entertain complaints presented before them against such accused persons who reside beyond their jurisdiction."

Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao

Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51

Date Of Order: 17th Day Of February, 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate C V Nagesh, A/W Advocate Nalina Mayegowda, M/S Poovayya & Co For Petitioner

Senior Advocate S.S.Yadrami For Respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order