Puthiya Thalaimurai Television Management v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRs.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.12849 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.6650 of 2019 Puthiya Thalaimurai Television Management Represented by Managing Director Dr.P.Sathyanarayanan Having office at No.25 A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai - 600 032.

... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

State by Inspector of Police, E2, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City.

Cr.No.964 of 2018.

... Respondent/Complainant Prayer:

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.964 of 2018 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.V.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime.No.964 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the debate show in a television channel in the presence of all political parties, representatives of the State, and when the leaders spoke on their own volition, it would not amount to promotion of enmity or as prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. But before considering the legal principles as well as the right availed to

the party concerned and based upon the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police filed an FIR against the petitioner punishable under Sections 153(A), 505(1)(b) IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. In Crime No.964 of 2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Press Council of India sent a notice stating that it has taken suo-moto cognizance of the registration of the case. He further submits that with malafide intention, FIR was filed with a view to intimidate the media house and the Channel. The attempt of the channel is to uplift the democracy by all means and it is not against the law. Hence, he prayed to quash the FIR.

4. At the time of argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per the final report given by the respondent police it is referred as "un-detected". Notice also served to the complainant to that effect and they enclosed the referred report along with the served copy in the final report.

5. On production of document, it reveals that the entire facts were a detailed investigation and referred by the police as "un-detected".

The notice was also issued under ROC.No.F.No.13/50/18-19-PCI. Referral notice was also served to the complainant on 26.11.2021 and a xerox copy of the notice was also enclosed with the final report which reveals that the matter is enclosed as "un-detected". Hence, the matter was closed as "un-detected". There is no under-progress and there is no need to keep the matter and the reasons stated by the petitioner is justified.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar drl To 1.The Inspector of Police, E2, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

+2cc to Dr.Venkatesan, , Advocate SR.No.63547 Crl.O.P.No.12849 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.6650 of 2019 PL(CO) GN(29/12/2021)