Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines To Quash Defamation Case Against Aaj Tak For Allegedly Linking Businessman With BJP Leader's Murder

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a defamation case filed against news channel Aaj Tak for allegedly linking a businessman Gopal Kumar Goyal, to the murder of a BJP leader and actor, Sonali Phogat in 2022.

The TV Today Network Limited had filed the plea challenging judicial magistrate's order directing the police to register a NCR and subsequently chargesheet filed on Goyal's complaint.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted that Goyal has disclosed commission of non- cognizable offence by the petitioner. As police investigation in the matter could not have been carried out without the order of a Magistrate, he took recourse to provisions of Section 155 Cr.P.C.

Section 155 CrPC pertains to information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.

The Court further noted that apparently, Section 155 provides that on receiving information, an officer in charge of the police station is required to enter substance of the information in a book, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Under sub-section (2), investigation of such a case cannot be carried out without an order by the Magistrate concerned.

In this case, after considering the complaint and other material facts, a direction was issued by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register a non-cognizable case and conduct investigation, it added.

The bench pointed that pursuant to the directions, the impugned NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) was registered, and on completion of investigation the impugned chargesheet dated 29.05.2024, was presented before the Magistrate.

"Accordingly, no exception can be taken to the procedure followed and the investigation carried out after registration of the NCR, as the same is in accordance with provisions of the Code. And the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to issue such a direction to investigate a non- cognizable case under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C," it added.

The Court highlighted that the only ground on which counsel for the petitioner has found fault with the impugned orders is that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in issuing directions to the concerned SHO to register the case is not as per law.

The Court refused to apply  Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and another, 2000 wherein Allahabad Court held that for offences falling under Chapter XXI, that includes Sections 499 and 500 IPC, no Court is competent to take recourse to provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and direct registration of FIR.

In the present case, Justice Dahiya opined that such a situation does not arise as the Magistrate has not issued any direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register an FIR, nor has any been registered. Investigation in the case has been carried out on the basis of complaint by the second respondent disclosing non-cognizable offence against the petitioner, and chargesheet has been filed pursuant to directions issued under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) with Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Click here to read/download the order