The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case filed against the Editor-in-chief of Republic Media Network Arnab Goswami for allegedly airing false news regarding Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on the Republic Kannada news channel. The High Court found that the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC were not met even in its remotest sense.

While doing so, the Court came down heavily on the State.

The Single Bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna observed, "Therefore, merely because the petitioner is a renowned name in the fourth estate, he is without rhyme and reason dragged into the web of crime, only to project registration of a crime against the petitioner, which on the face of it, is reckless."

“Therefore, he has done nothing, ostensibly, so as the petitioner has not committed any offence as observed hereinabove, the petitioner is dragged in only because he is Arnab Goswami”, the Court further observed.

The Court also termed the FIR an attempt only to "settle other scores".

Arnab approached the High Court calling in question the registration of a case against him under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam represented the Peititoner while Additional State Public Prosecutor Jagadeesha B.N. represented the Respondents.


Factual Background

A complaint was registered at the instance of the second respondent-complainant, a Member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, against the Editor-in-chief of the Republic Media Network (petitioner) along with the Executive Editor of the news channel – Republic Kannada alleging that news was reported by the news channel on a video that was circulated depicting that an ambulance was made to wait in thick traffic for the reason that the Chief Minister convoy was to pass through the said road. This according to the news, restricted the movement of the vehicles including the aforesaid ambulance.

It was alleged that this was a false report, to spread negative opinions, during the elections to the Parliament. A complaint was thus registered under Section 505(2) of the IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 505(2) of the IPC deals with statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes and whoever makes statements, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with an intent to create or promote or likely to create or promote ill-will between two different religions, racial, languages or regional groups.

It was noticed that an alleged false report was aired saying that the convoy of the Chief Minister had to pass and an ambulance had to wait. “Even if it is construed to be true, it is un-understandable as to how the ingredients of Section 505(2) is met even to its remotest sense. Therefore, merely because the petitioner is a renowned name in the fourth estate, he is without rhyme and reason dragged into the web of crime, only to project registration of a crime against the petitioner, which on the face of it, is reckless”, the Bench said.

Taking the designation of the Petitioner into consideration, the Bench asserted, “He being the Editor in-Chief or Executive Director of Republic Media Network, he has neither made a statement nor aired anything to promote hatred between the classes minute to minute details of what is aired on R.Kannada. Therfore, it becomes a classic illustration of dragging the petitioner only to settle other scores. Recklessness pervades throughout the registration of the complaint.”

Reference was further made to a judgment in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of Andra Pradesh (1997) where the appellant was not held to be guilty of either the offence under Section 153A or under Section 505(2) of IPC as he had not done anything as against any religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or community. In light of the fact that the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC were not met, the Bench was of the view that permitting investigation against the petitioner would result in gross abuse of the process of the law by the prosecution, and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice.

“Except malafides, there is no substance in the complaint. It is in such cases, the Apex Court permits obliteration of the investigation even when it is, in the crime stage itself”, the Bench added. The Court thus concluded, "Therefore, it deem it appropriate obliterate the damocles sword hanging on the head of the petitioner of a irresponsible crime registered against him."

Cause Title: Mr Arnab Goswami v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:6555)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, Advocate Anand Muttalli

Respondent: Additional State Public Prosecutor Jagadeesha B.N.

Click here to read/download Order


Justice M Nagaprasanna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.