Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Aaj Tak Over Sonali Phogat Death Coverage
|The defamation case arises from Gopal Kanda's allegation that Aaj Tak and others falsely linked him to Sonali Phogat’s 2022 death.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against TV Today Network Limited, which owns the news channel Aaj Tak, in connection with its reporting on the death of BJP leader and actor Sonali Phogat.
The defamation case stems from allegations made by former Haryana MLA and businessman Gopal Kanda (also known as Gopal Kumar Goyal), who claimed that Aaj Tak and several other media outlets had defamed him by linking him to Phogat’s death in 2022. The police in Gurugram subsequently filed a chargesheet against the media houses, including Aaj Tak.
TV Today Network had approached the High Court seeking to quash both the judicial magistrate’s direction to register a non-cognizable case (NCR) on Kanda’s complaint and the subsequent chargesheet filed against the channel.
A Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed, “Investigation in the case has been carried out on the basis of complaint by second respondent disclosing non-cognizable offence against the petitioner, and chargesheet has been filed pursuant to directions issued under Section 155(2) CrPC.”
Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah appeared for the petitioner, and Senior Deputy Advocate General Tanushree Gupta appeared for the Respondents.
The Court upheld the validity of the procedure followed by the magistrate and the investigating authorities.
The Court observed that since Kanda’s complaint revealed the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he had rightly approached the magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In response, the magistrate lawfully directed the police to register an NCR and proceed with an investigation.
The Court clarified that a magistrate is legally empowered under Section 155(2) CrPC to authorize an investigation into a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court found no procedural error in the registration of the case or the subsequent investigation carried out by the police.
TV Today had argued that the magistrate acted beyond his jurisdiction, asserting that under Section 199 CrPC, a defamation case cannot proceed by way of FIR or police investigation, and hence the magistrate could not have resorted to Section 156(3) CrPC, which empowers magistrates to direct police to register an FIR in cognizable offences.
The High Court, however, dismissed this argument, making it clear that Section 156(3) CrPC was not invoked in the present case. Instead, the direction for investigation came under Section 155(2) CrPC, which governs non-cognizable offences, and therefore the bar under Section 199 CrPC was not applicable in this context.
In conclusion, the High Court refused to interfere with the ongoing proceedings and dismissed the plea filed by TV Today Network.
Cause Title: TV Today Network Limited v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2025:PHHC:101445]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah and Jasneet Kaur
Respondents: Senior Deputy Advocate General Tanushree Gupta