In a major development, we see that none other than Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled Arnab Goswami vs State of Karnataka and Ors in WP No. 34162 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: NC: 2025:KHC:6555 that was pronounced as recently as on 13.02.2025 while catching the bull by the horns and taking potshots at the Karnataka police has been most vocal in forthrightly observing without mincing any words whatsoever that the Karnataka police irresponsibly and recklessly booked Republic News Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in a fake news case only to settle scores with him and because he is a renowned name in the media. We need to note here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna made the key observation while quashing a criminal case that had been filed against Arnab Goswami who had been booked last year on allegations that Republic TV had aired a fake news report on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. It is quite ostensible that the Karnataka police was attempting to appease the State Government.
It must be asked: Why Centre can usher in Army reforms like Agniveer which Supreme Court never recommended, can usher in Advocate Reform both of which drew strong criticism and Advocate Amendment Bill Centre had to withdraw to make more changes which again Supreme Court never recommended then why the hell Centre never ushers in police reforms which the Supreme Court so very strongly recommended about 20 years ago in Prakash Singh vs Union of India case in 2006? Who is the powerful vested lobby who does not want any reforms in the police? Centre must specify and come clean on it as major reforms in police are long overdue yet Centre is doing absolutely just nothing on it and due to which a common person faces huge problems in even lodging FIR and under the new amended laws we see that only police alone has been empowered to lodge FIR and not anyone else! Why so much of unfettered discretion at the hands of police?
Before stating anything else, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.35/2024, for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Sans details, facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is one of the directors of the holding company of the channel – R. Kannada, which is, ARG Outlier Media Private Limited. The petitioner owns and operates the Republic Media Network. The Republic Media Network operates news channels in English, Hindi, Bangla and Kannada. In Kannada, it is R.Kannada. The petitioner is the Editor-in-chief of the Republic Media Network; is said to have more than 20 years of experience in the field of journalism and to be the most decorated journalist in the field.”
While shedding more light on the facts of the case, the Bench lays bare in para 4 stating that, “The second respondent is the complainant, who is said to be the Member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, representing the Indian National Congress. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner along with the Executive Editor of the news channel – Republic Kannada/R.Kannada alleging that a news is reported by the R.Kannada news channel on a video that was circulated depicting that an ambulance was made to wait in thick traffic for the reason that the Chief Minister convoy was to pass through the said road. The road was M.G.Road, Bengaluru. This according to the news, restricted the movement of the vehicles including the aforesaid ambulance. Alleging that this was a false report, to spread negative opinion, during the elections to the Parliament, a complaint comes to be registered, which becomes a crime in Crime No.35/2024, for offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “Though the complaint was registered on 27.03.2024, the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. after about six months, i.e., on 16.11.2024 and was directed to appear before the S.J.Park Police Station. It is at that juncture, the petitioner approaches this Court in the subject petition. The core issue that would be is, whether the offence is met in the case at hand. The offence alleged is the one made penal under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that, “What is aired in the case at hand is an alleged false report, that the convoy of the Chief Minister had to pass and an ambulance has to wait. Even if it is construed to be true, it is un-understandable as to how the ingredients of Section 505(2) is met even to its remotest sense. Therefore, merely because the petitioner is a renowned name in the fourth estate, he is without rhyme and reason dragged into the web of crime, only to project registration of a crime against the petitioner, which on the face of it, is reckless.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly and most sagaciously, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “At the time of hearing of the petition, to a pointed query, that ‘the Court wants to know what offence the petitioner has committed’, there is no reply. Therefore, he has done nothing, ostensibly, so as the petitioner has not committed any offence as observed hereinabove, the petitioner is dragged in only because he is Arnab Goswami. It is ununderstandable as to how the petitioner could be dragged into this. He being the Editor in-Chief or Executive Director of Republic Media Network, he has neither made a statement nor aired anything to promote hatred between the classes. It is the averment that he is not incharge of day-to-day affairs or minute to minute details of what is aired on R.Kannada. Therfore, it becomes a classic illustration of dragging the petitioner only to settle other scores. Recklessness pervades throughout the registration of the complaint.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 12 that, “In the light of the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC is not been met, even to the remotest sense, in the case at hand, and also the interpretation of the Apex Court on Section 505(2) of the IPC, in the afore-quoted judgment, permitting investigation even against the petitioner would result in gross abuse of the process of the law by the prosecution, and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 13 that, “The submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the complaint is only registered and the charge sheet may vary the offence, is noted only to be rejected. To permit investigation, there should be substance in the complaint. Except malafides, there is no substance in the complaint. It is in such cases, the Apex Court permits obliteration of the investigation even when it is, in the crime stage itself.”
Most strikingly and most commendably, the Bench strikes the right chord by observing in para 14 that, “It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the preceding analysis and also the judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, permitting investigation even, in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the damocles sword hanging on the head of the petitioner of a irresponsible crime registered against him.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then draws the curtains of this notable judgment by very rightly holding and directing in para 15 that, “For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The impugned crime in Crime No.35/2024, pending before the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands obliterated.”
Author Bio
