Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 11 September 2026 (judgment); impugned process order dated 11 April 2017

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ravi Prakash Velicheti (≈49 years) and Narsimha Murthy Kalyana Mangipudi (≈50 years), both Managing Directors of TV 9 Media Maharashtra Private Limited, located at Plot No. 160, National Media Centre, Shankar Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Maharashtra, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, A.S. Mumbai; (2) Rajesh Jagannath Sawane, resident of E/2, 20, Marol Police Camp, Andheri (East), Mumbai‑93.
  • Original complaint filed on 4 April 2015 by Respondent No. 2 (a Mumbai police officer) alleged defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500 arising from a TV 9 news telecast titled “Mumbai Khakiwalachi Dulhi” aired on 14‑15 December 2013.
  • FIR No. 598 of 2013 dated 24 October 2013 was lodged under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.
  • The complainant claimed the telecast was prejudicial, damaged his personal reputation and that of the Maharashtra Police Force, and sought an unconditional apology which was refused on 20 January 2014.
  • Verification of the complaint was recorded on 28 July 2015 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri.
  • On 24 November 2015, the complainant applied to amend the private complaint to add the two petitioners as co‑accused, alleging they were inadvertently omitted; the amendment was allowed on the same day.
  • Subsequently, on 11 April 2017, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against all three accused (the original editor and the two petitioners) under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
  • No re‑verification was conducted after the amendment; the 28 July 2015 verification did not mention the petitioners.
  • Petitioners argued that the amendment was not permissible under law, that no fresh verification was done, and that the magistrate’s order lacked any reasoning linking them to the alleged offence.
  • Respondent No. 2 contended that a prima facie case existed, that the petitioners’ refusal to apologise constituted the offence, and that the amendment was necessary for justice.
  • The Court examined extensive precedents on the mandatory nature of verification under Section 200 (now 223) of the CrPC, emphasizing that verification is not a formality but a substantive inquiry to prevent frivolous or vexatious proceedings (citing Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal, Nova Electricals v. State of Maharashtra, Amarnath Baijnath Gupta v. Mohini Organics, Captain Lance Irwin Lobo v. Ismail D’Souza, Jagdish v. State of Maharashtra, Dayle De’Souza v. Union of India, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Samraj Gold Exports).
  • The Court found that the magistrate had not recorded a fresh verification after the amendment, had not applied his mind to the petitioners’ alleged role, and had failed to provide any reasons in the order of issuance of process, contrary to Supreme Court pronouncements that reasons must be stated.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) and quashed the order of issuance of process dated 11 April 2017.
  • The petition was partly allowed as per prayer clause (b); the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously from the stage of verification, in accordance with law.
  • No opinion was expressed on the merits of the defamation claim; all contentions remain open for determination at trial.

Topics: Defamation Law, Criminal Procedure, Media