Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8901 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 8391 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P No. 8901/2023
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANTH PAI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.K. PAI
R/AT D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS
TH
8 CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
MANGALURU-575003.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.,
13, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN,
CIVIL STATION,
BANGALORE-560025.
2.
THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.,
13, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN,
CIVIL STATION,
BANGALORE-560025.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 17.05.2023 BEING PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C II COURT,
MANGALURU, D.K., IN REJECTING THE MEMO DATED 17.12.2022 IN
C.C.NO.3407/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WP NO. 8391/2021
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANTH PAI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.K. PAI
R/AT. D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS
TH
8 CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
MANGALURU-575003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
ABDUL HAKEEM
S/O HUSEN HAKEEM
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.,
NO.97, ROAD 3, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH-34
AND ALSO AT:
ABDUL HAKEEM
S/O HUSEN HAKEEM,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.
13/1, RHENIUS STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560025
2.
P.RAJESH RAO
S/O SUNDAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.
NO.97, ROAD 3, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD,
ANDHDRA PRADESH-34
ALSO AT:
RAJESH P.RAO,
S/O SUNDAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD.,
13/1, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH
SOMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2026, PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT
NO.1 STANDS ABATED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 30.09.2020 BEING PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE PASSED IN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.19/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II JMFC, AT MANGALORE DATED 07.01.2020 IN
CC.NO.3407/2016.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.8391/2021 has called in
question the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Revisional Court' for
short) in Crl.R.P. No.19/2020 by which, the order dated
07.01.2020 passed by JMFC II Court, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru in C.C.No.3407/2016, canceling the bail granted to
the petitioners therein, was set aside and the bail bonds of the
petitioners were restored.
2. The petitioner filed a private complaint in PCR
No.12/2012 against seven accused to prosecute them for the
offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered
C.C.No.1605/2012 and issued process to accused Nos.1 to 7.
Thereafter, the case against accused Nos.5 and 6 who are the
respondents herein was split up and registered as
C.C.No.3407/2016. The respondents were granted bail by the
Trial Court. Later, the petitioner herein filed an application
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
under Section 437(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for
cancellation of the bail, which was dismissed by the Magistrate
in terms of an order dated 22.07.2019. However, noticing that
the respondents had failed to comply with the conditions
imposed, the Magistrate, cancelled the bail granted to the
respondents by order dated 07.01.2020. The said order was
then challenged by the respondents in Crl.R.P.No.19/2020
which was allowed in terms of an order dated 30.09.2020.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the cancellation of bail by the Trial Court was on account of
non-compliance of the directions issued by it and that the
same was just and proper, warranting no interference by the
Revisional Court. He therefore submits that the Revisional
Court committed an error in interfering with the order passed
by the Trial Court. He invited the attention of this Court to the
various orders passed by the Trial Court directing the
respondents to comply with certain conditions, which were not
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
complied and which perforce the Trial Court to cancel the bail
granted to them.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the
respondents submits that respondent No.1 has expired. He
submits that the offences alleged against respondent No.2 was
under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC which are bailable and
therefore, the respondents are entitled to bail as a matter of
right. He therefore, submits that the Trial Court instead of
taking necessary steps to ensure compliance of its orders,
should not have cancelled the bail granted. He thus contends
that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not warrant
interference.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel
for the respondents.
7. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel
for the respondents, the offences alleged against the
respondents are bailable and hence, they are entitled to be
released on bail as a matter of right. If the respondents failed
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
to comply with any directions issued by the Trial Court, the
Trial Court, instead of taking any other coercive steps, could
not have cancelled the bail granted on the ground of such non-
compliance.
8. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court was
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court
canceling the bail granted to the respondents. There is no
error committed by the Revisional Court warranting
interference.
9. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
In Crl.P.No.8901/2023
10. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the
order dated 17.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.3407/2016 by JMFC
II Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada.
11. The petitioner had initiated prosecution of the
respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 499
and 500 of IPC. The petitioner had arraigned the respondents
herein by their designation, as he did not have the particulars
of the names of the persons holding such posts. It appears that
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
the case against the respondents was split up and registered as
C.C.No.3407/2016. Since the petitioner did not have the
particulars of the persons who were holding the offices of the
respondents, he filed a memo dated 17.12.2022 which reads as
follows:
"8(a). To summon the Director
Mr.Clifford Pereira, who claims to be holding the
post of Director and is also a senior Director as per
the reply filed by the legal head to make his
appearance before this Hon'ble court and to
answer the periodical directions being issued by
this Hon'ble court dated:- 18-10-2022 to meet the
ends of justice."
12. The petitioner, in effect, sought the particulars of
the persons who were holding the offices of Chief Executive
Officer and Editor-In-Chief as on the date of publication of the
alleged defamatory article. The said memo was considered by
the Trial Court and in terms of an order dated 17.05.2023, was
rejected on the ground that the Court does not have the power
to lift the corporate veil of the company and that such lifting of
corporate veil could be done either by this Court or by the
Registrar of companies.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
13. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is
before this Court.
14. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the respondents are arraigned as accused Nos.5 and 6 in
the private complaint. However, the petitioner did not have the
name of the persons who were holding the offices of accused
Nos.5 and 6. He contends that the cognizance against accused
Nos.5 and 6 was split up and the case in C.C.No.3407/2016
was registered.
(ii) He further submits that since the petitioner did not
have particulars of the persons who were holding the affairs of
the respondents at the relevant point of time when the alleged
defamatory article was published, and the persons who
appeared before the Trial Court claimed that they were not
Chief Executive Officer and Editor-In-chief at the relevant time,
he filed a memo seeking particulars of such persons.
(iii) He contends that the Trial Court instead of
considering the memo from this standpoint, rejected the same
on the ground that it cannot lift the corporate veil. He contends
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
that there was no need for the Trial Court to lift the veil to
ascertain the names of the persons who are responsible for
publishing the defamatory articles and therefore, the Trial Court
committed an error in rejecting the memo.
15. (i) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner has no right to seek
such particulars at this stage. He submits that the right, if any,
of the petitioners would arise only at the stage as set out in
Section 254(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and that such stage
has not arisen. He therefore submits that the Trial Court was
justified in rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner. He also
submits that the respondents have no objection for the
petitioner to file an application under Section 254(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code.
(ii) He further submits that the petitioner cannot seek
such particulars by way of a memo and if the petitioner is
interested to know the particulars, he may file an appropriate
application at the appropriate stage, and the same would be
considered by the Trial Court. He also submits that the
Magistrate cannot undertake a roving enquiry to ascertain the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
persons who were holding office at the relevant point of time
and that it was for the petitioner to ascertain such particulars at
the time of filing the private complaint.
16. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel
for the respondents.
17. The respondents were arraigned as Chief Executive
Officer and Editor-In-Chief of the accused company which had
published the alleged defamatory article. It was appropriate for
the petitioner to ascertain the names of persons who had
committed the offence before filing the private complaint.
However, this information cannot be within the knowledge of
the petitioner but is within the exclusive knowledge of the
company.
18. The petitioner was therefore, justified in filing a
memo calling upon the director of the company to disclose the
names of the persons who were holding the offices of the Chief
Executive Officer and Editor-In-Chief as on the date on which
the alleged defamatory article was published. The purpose of
securing such information is to proceed against the persons
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
who were responsible for the commission of the offence and not
against those who are presently in office and who were not
responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory article.
Therefore, the petitioner was justified in calling upon the
director of the company to appear before the Court to disclose
the names of the persons who were holding the office as on
date of commission of offence.
19. The Trial Court instead of considering the memo
from this perspective, has referred to a phrase mentioned by
the petitioner in the memo "to lift the corporate veil," to deny
the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. The reliefs sought for by
the petitioner in the memo was wholly innocuous and did not
affect or prejudice the accused in any manner whatsoever.
20. In that view of the matter, the contention of the
learned senior counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is
entitled to move an application at the stage after the plea is
recorded does not appeal to the Court as the Court cannot
proceed without ascertaining who the real accused are.
21. Therefore the petition is allowed and the Trial
Court is directed to issue appropriate summons to the Director
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20030
CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023
C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021
HC-KAR
of TV.9 Karnataka private limited to furnish details of the Chief
Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief as on the date of the
commission of the offence. The Trial Court shall thereafter
proceed in accordance with law.
22. In view of the above, after the Director of the TV.9
Karnataka Private Limited furnishes the particulars of the
persons who were holding the offices of Chief Executive Officer
and Editor-in-Chief as on the date of commission of the offence,
prosecution against them shall proceed. However, the
proceedings against the person presently arraigned as
accused/Editor-in-Chief of TV.9 Karnataka Private Limited shall
stand dropped. It is also open to the said person to file
necessary application before the Trial Court to exonerate him in
view of the above order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16