Anand Byrareddy, J.:— The present petitioner is said to be the owner of a newspaper publication. He is arraigned as an accused along with the editor of the newspaper at the instance of the respondent - complainant in respect of alleged defamatory material published in the newspaper.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that there can be no vicarious liability insofar as the criminal law is concerned. The complainant's allegation of the defamatory material published in the newspaper against him, even if it is established, can only be sustained against the editor of the newspaper and not the owner of the newspaper. The petitioner admittedly was the owner. The newspaper carries a legend that the newspaper is edited and published on behalf of the petitioner and there is no dispute in this regard. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the proceedings against the petitioner are misconceived and ought to be quashed.
3. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent would seek to contend that the question is no longer res Integra and is covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M Mathew v. K.A Abraham, AIR 2002 SC 2989, it is however noticed that the said decision was in respect of a managing editor, resident editor or a chief editor of respective newspaper publications, who were parties therein. Therefore, at the outset, it can be said that the said case could be distinguished from the case on hand, as the petitioner is not claiming as an editor, who had any role in the publication of the newspaper. Therefore, it is a fit case where the petition should be allowed.
4. Accordingly, though the criminal proceedings can go on against the editor of the newspaper, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with, as it would lead to a miscarriage of justice.
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in CC No. 1252/2014 on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru and the order passed in Crl.RP 219/2014 by the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, stand quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.