Allahabad High Court dismissed a Section 482 CrPC plea seeking to quash summoning and criminal proceedings against three News18 journalists over alleged defamatory reporting. Holding that no mini-trial is permissible at the quashing stage, the Court directed the matter to proceed to trial.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that sought to quash a summoning order and criminal proceedings against three journalists from News18 channel.
These proceedings were initiated following a complaint by senior IPS officer Amitabh Yash, who alleged that a news segment implicated him in accepting bribes to release a criminal. Justice Brij Raj Singh ruled against the application, stating that the court cannot assess evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” during the quashing stage, and determined that a trial is necessary.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Allahabad High Court Stays Survey In Gyanvapi
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint by 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 claimed that on September 20, 2017, a news report aired on News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh, suggesting that Yash was involved in “earning illicit money from criminals.” Specifically, the report accused him of facilitating the release of Gurpreet Singh, alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria, the mastermind behind the Nabha Jail Break, in exchange for money.
The report included the specific statement:
“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 this case include 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, issued a summoning order on December 12, 2018, for Complaint Case No. 1297, which the applicants sought to annul.
ALSO READ: Centre Clears Advocate Jai Krishna Upadhyay’s Elevation as Allahabad High Court Judge
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions by the Applicants: Counsel for the applicants, Shri Nadeem Murtaza, contended that the journalists were performing their duties and the channel had engaged in “fair, unbiased and bona fide reporting.” He argued that the incident involving the arrest and release of the criminal had been reported by various reputable newspapers, including The Tribune and Dainik Jagran, on September 18, 2017.
The applicants claimed that a high-level inquiry by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) exonerated Yash on September 28, 2017. They asserted that the telecast on September 20, 2017, did not implicate the complainant in any wrongdoing and that the segment aired was factual and unaltered, warranting no offense. They referenced several judicial precedents, including Neelu Chopra And Another vs. Bharti and Aroon Purie v. State (NCT of Delhi), to support their call for quashing the summons.
Submissions by the Opposite Party (Complainant): Counsel for the opposite party, Shri Ishan Baghel, opposed the application, asserting that the news channel made specific defamatory allegations against a decorated IPS officer who had received three Gallantry Medals.
He emphasized that the applicants were accountable for managing the telecast, which expressly named the complainant. Baghel noted that the same subject matter was reported by other channels, including E-24 and Bharat Samachar. He also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amitabh Yash Vs. Manoj Rajan Tripathi & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14790 of 2023), which had overturned a High Court decision that had quashed proceedings in a similar case involving another news channel.
Observations of the Court:
After reviewing both parties, the High Court opted not to intervene with the summoning order. Justice Brij Raj Singh leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s observations from March 5, 2024, regarding a related case involving a different news channel. The Court cited that the Supreme Court had noted the Magistrate considered the Inquiry Report (which exonerated Yash) before issuing the summons.
Justice Singh stated:
“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.” The Court declined to conduct a factual examination and referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CBI Vs Aryan Singh (2023), asserting that “…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.”
Additionally, the Court referenced Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reinforcing the principle that while examining a complaint for quashing, the court cannot resolve disputed factual issues or evaluate the credibility of the allegations.
Considering the Supreme Court’s remarks in the related appeal and established legal principles regarding the scope of Section 482 CrPC, the High Court concluded that the case necessitates a trial.
It said,
“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.”
As a result, the application filed by the journalists was dismissed.
Case Title: Jyoti Kamal and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another
Read Attachment: