The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has rejected an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the quashing of a summoning order and criminal proceedings against three journalists from News18 channel. The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by senior IPS officer Amitabh Yash regarding a news telecast alleging his involvement in taking bribes to release a criminal.
Justice Brij Raj Singh dismissed the application, observing that the court cannot weigh evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” at the stage of quashing proceedings, and held that the matter requires a trial.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2, Amitabh Yash, an IPS officer currently serving as Additional Director General (ADG) of the Special Task Force (STF) and Law & Order in Uttar Pradesh. The complaint alleged that on September 20, 2017, at about 07:45 PM, a news report was telecast on News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh projecting that the officer was involved in “earning illicit money from criminals.”
Specifically, the news report alleged that the mastermind of the Nabha Jail Break, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria, was arrested by the UP Police but was later set free by a senior police officer in lieu of money. The complaint cited the specific words aired during the broadcast: “STF ke IG Amitabh Yash paisa lekar Punjab ke dahshatgardon ko chod deta hai” (STF IG Amitabh Yash releases Punjab’s terrorists after taking money).
The applicants in the present case are Jyoti Kamal (then Executive Editor), Santosh Sharma (then Crime Reporter), and Gaurav Shukla (then Assistant News Editor/Anchor).
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 32, Lucknow, had issued a summoning order on December 12, 2018, in Complaint Case No. 1297, which the applicants sought to quash.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions by the Applicants: Counsel for the applicants, Shri Nadeem Murtaza, argued that the applicants were performing their duties as journalists and that the channel had done “fair, unbiased and bona fide reporting.” It was submitted that the incident regarding the arrest and release of the criminal was reported in various national newspapers, including The Tribune and Dainik Jagran, on September 18, 2017.
The applicants contended that a high-level inquiry conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) had subsequently exonerated the complainant on September 28, 2017. They argued that the telecast on September 20, 2017, did not attribute any role to the complainant in setting the criminal free and that the discussion telecast was “as it is,” for which no offense should be made out.
Reliance was placed on several judgments, including Neelu Chopra And Another vs. Bharti and Aroon Purie v. State (NCT of Delhi), to argue for the quashing of the summons.
Submissions by the Opposite Party (Complainant): Counsel for the opposite party, Shri Ishan Baghel, opposed the plea, submitting that the news channel telecast specific defamatory imputations against a decorated IPS officer who has been awarded three Gallantry Medals. He argued that the applicants were responsible for managing the telecast which explicitly named the complainant.
The counsel highlighted that the same subject matter was telecast by other channels, such as E-24 and Bharat Samachar. It was pointed out that the Supreme Court, in Amitabh Yash Vs. Manoj Rajan Tripathi & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14790 of 2023), had set aside a High Court order that had quashed proceedings in a similar matter involving another news channel.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, after hearing both parties, declined to interfere with the summoning order. Justice Brij Raj Singh relied heavily on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated March 5, 2024, regarding the same issue involving a different news channel.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously observed that the Magistrate had taken note of the Inquiry Report (which exonerated the officer) before issuing the summons.
Justice Singh observed:
“After going through the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court cannot weigh the evidences. Certainly, the trial is required. This Court, under Section 482 CrPC, cannot record the finding whether the applicants are innocent or not.”
Refusing to embark on a factual enquiry, the Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in CBI Vs Aryan Singh (2023), stating:
“…the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial, at this stage of discharge/quashing of the criminal proceedings.”
The Court also referred to Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that while examining a complaint for quashing, the court cannot adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact or inquire into the reliability of the allegations.
Decision
In view of the Supreme Court’s observations in the related appeal and the settled legal principles regarding the scope of Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that the case requires a trial.
“This Court is of the opinion that the case requires trial and this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, cannot interfere in the case.”
Consequently, the application filed by the journalists was rejected.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Jyoti Kamal and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another
- Case Number: Application U/s 482 No. 3237 of 2020
- Coram: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Counsel for Applicants: Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Ishan Baghel, Mohd. Khalid
