Arnab Goswami.
Credit: @RTArnabOfficial
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings against journalist Arnab Goswami in a crime registered by the High Grounds police in Bengaluru city.
The crime was registered, following the news in Republic Kannada channel on March 27, 2024 that traffic movement was blocked and an ambulance got struck on MG Road due to the movement of the Chief Minister’s convoy.
MV Ravindra, a member of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), representing the Indian National Congress, had filed a complaint alleging that it was a false report to spread negative opinion during the elections to the Lok Sabha.
The High Grounds police had registered the FIR under IPC section 505(2), statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. On November 16, 2024 Arnab Goswami was served with a notice under CrPC section 41A asking him to appear before the police for investigation.
Challenging this, the counsel for Goswami argued that he is not involved in day-to-day functioning or decision making of the news channel nor he has hosted or participated in the airing of the news. On the other hand, the Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner would be held responsible as being one of the directors or Editor-in-Chief of the channel.
Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that what was aired as news was an alleged ‘false report’ that an ambulance had to wait so as to allow the Chief Minister’s convoy to pass through. The court further noted that the police did not file a reply when posed with a pointed query as to what offence the petitioner has committed.
“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,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said, “In the light of the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC is not been met, even to the remotest sense, in the case at hand, and also the interpretation of the Apex Court on Section 505(2) of the IPC, permitting investigation even against the petitioner would result in gross abuse of the process of the law by the prosecution, and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice.”