- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8901 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8391 OF 2021 (GM-RES) IN CRL.P No. 8901/2023 BETWEEN: CHANDRAKANTH PAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE P.K. PAI R/AT D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS 8TH CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR MANGALURU-575003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., 13, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE-560025. 2. THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., 13, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE-560025. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2023 BEING PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C II COURT, MANGALURU, D.K., IN REJECTING THE MEMO DATED 17.12.2022 IN C.C.NO.3407/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WP NO. 8391/2021 BETWEEN: CHANDRAKANTH PAI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE P.K. PAI R/AT. D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS 8TH CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR MANGALURU-575003. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL HAKEEM S/O HUSEN HAKEEM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., NO.97, ROAD 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH-34 AND ALSO AT: ABDUL HAKEEM S/O HUSEN HAKEEM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD. 13/1, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560025 2. P.RAJESH RAO S/O SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD. NO.97, ROAD 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, ANDHDRA PRADESH-34 ALSO AT: RAJESH P.RAO, S/O SUNDAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., 13/1, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560 025. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2026, PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.1 STANDS ABATED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2020 BEING PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.19/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE COURT OF II JMFC, AT MANGALORE DATED 07.01.2020 IN CC.NO.3407/2016. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.8391/2021 has called in question the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Revisional Court' for short) in Crl.R.P. No.19/2020 by which, the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by JMFC II Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in C.C.No.3407/2016, canceling the bail granted to the petitioners therein, was set aside and the bail bonds of the petitioners were restored. 2. The petitioner filed a private complaint in PCR No.12/2012 against seven accused to prosecute them for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.1605/2012 and issued process to accused Nos.1 to 7. Thereafter, the case against accused Nos.5 and 6 who are the respondents herein was split up and registered as C.C.No.3407/2016. The respondents were granted bail by the Trial Court. Later, the petitioner herein filed an application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 under Section 437(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for cancellation of the bail, which was dismissed by the Magistrate in terms of an order dated 22.07.2019. However, noticing that the respondents had failed to comply with the conditions imposed, the Magistrate, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents by order dated 07.01.2020. The said order was then challenged by the respondents in Crl.R.P.No.19/2020 which was allowed in terms of an order dated 30.09.2020. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of bail by the Trial Court was on account of non-compliance of the directions issued by it and that the same was just and proper, warranting no interference by the Revisional Court. He therefore submits that the Revisional Court committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court. He invited the attention of this Court to the various orders passed by the Trial Court directing the respondents to comply with certain conditions, which were not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 complied and which perforce the Trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No.1 has expired. He submits that the offences alleged against respondent No.2 was under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC which are bailable and therefore, the respondents are entitled to bail as a matter of right. He therefore, submits that the Trial Court instead of taking necessary steps to ensure compliance of its orders, should not have cancelled the bail granted. He thus contends that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not warrant interference. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel for the respondents. 7. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the offences alleged against the respondents are bailable and hence, they are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. If the respondents failed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 to comply with any directions issued by the Trial Court, the Trial Court, instead of taking any other coercive steps, could not have cancelled the bail granted on the ground of such non- compliance. 8. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court canceling the bail granted to the respondents. There is no error committed by the Revisional Court warranting interference. 9. Hence, the petition is dismissed. In Crl.P.No.8901/2023 10. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated 17.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.3407/2016 by JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. 11. The petitioner had initiated prosecution of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The petitioner had arraigned the respondents herein by their designation, as he did not have the particulars of the names of the persons holding such posts. It appears that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 the case against the respondents was split up and registered as C.C.No.3407/2016. Since the petitioner did not have the particulars of the persons who were holding the offices of the respondents, he filed a memo dated 17.12.2022 which reads as follows: "8(a). To summon the Director Mr.Clifford Pereira, who claims to be holding the post of Director and is also a senior Director as per the reply filed by the legal head to make his appearance before this Hon'ble court and to answer the periodical directions being issued by this Hon'ble court dated:- 18-10-2022 to meet the ends of justice." 12. The petitioner, in effect, sought the particulars of the persons who were holding the offices of Chief Executive Officer and Editor-In-Chief as on the date of publication of the alleged defamatory article. The said memo was considered by the Trial Court and in terms of an order dated 17.05.2023, was rejected on the ground that the Court does not have the power to lift the corporate veil of the company and that such lifting of corporate veil could be done either by this Court or by the Registrar of companies. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 13. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court. 14. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are arraigned as accused Nos.5 and 6 in the private complaint. However, the petitioner did not have the name of the persons who were holding the offices of accused Nos.5 and 6. He contends that the cognizance against accused Nos.5 and 6 was split up and the case in C.C.No.3407/2016 was registered. (ii) He further submits that since the petitioner did not have particulars of the persons who were holding the affairs of the respondents at the relevant point of time when the alleged defamatory article was published, and the persons who appeared before the Trial Court claimed that they were not Chief Executive Officer and Editor-In-chief at the relevant time, he filed a memo seeking particulars of such persons. (iii) He contends that the Trial Court instead of considering the memo from this standpoint, rejected the same on the ground that it cannot lift the corporate veil. He contends - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 that there was no need for the Trial Court to lift the veil to ascertain the names of the persons who are responsible for publishing the defamatory articles and therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the memo. 15. (i) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no right to seek such particulars at this stage. He submits that the right, if any, of the petitioners would arise only at the stage as set out in Section 254(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and that such stage has not arisen. He therefore submits that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner. He also submits that the respondents have no objection for the petitioner to file an application under Section 254(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. (ii) He further submits that the petitioner cannot seek such particulars by way of a memo and if the petitioner is interested to know the particulars, he may file an appropriate application at the appropriate stage, and the same would be considered by the Trial Court. He also submits that the Magistrate cannot undertake a roving enquiry to ascertain the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 persons who were holding office at the relevant point of time and that it was for the petitioner to ascertain such particulars at the time of filing the private complaint. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 17. The respondents were arraigned as Chief Executive Officer and Editor-In-Chief of the accused company which had published the alleged defamatory article. It was appropriate for the petitioner to ascertain the names of persons who had committed the offence before filing the private complaint. However, this information cannot be within the knowledge of the petitioner but is within the exclusive knowledge of the company. 18. The petitioner was therefore, justified in filing a memo calling upon the director of the company to disclose the names of the persons who were holding the offices of the Chief Executive Officer and Editor-In-Chief as on the date on which the alleged defamatory article was published. The purpose of securing such information is to proceed against the persons - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 who were responsible for the commission of the offence and not against those who are presently in office and who were not responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory article. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in calling upon the director of the company to appear before the Court to disclose the names of the persons who were holding the office as on date of commission of offence. 19. The Trial Court instead of considering the memo from this perspective, has referred to a phrase mentioned by the petitioner in the memo "to lift the corporate veil," to deny the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the memo was wholly innocuous and did not affect or prejudice the accused in any manner whatsoever. 20. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to move an application at the stage after the plea is recorded does not appeal to the Court as the Court cannot proceed without ascertaining who the real accused are. 21. Therefore the petition is allowed and the Trial Court is directed to issue appropriate summons to the Director - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20030 CRL.P No. 8901 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8391 of 2021 of TV.9 Karnataka private limited to furnish details of the Chief Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief as on the date of the commission of the offence. The Trial Court shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 22. In view of the above, after the Director of the TV.9 Karnataka Private Limited furnishes the particulars of the persons who were holding the offices of Chief Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief as on the date of commission of the offence, prosecution against them shall proceed. However, the proceedings against the person presently arraigned as accused/Editor-in-Chief of TV.9 Karnataka Private Limited shall stand dropped. It is also open to the said person to file necessary application before the Trial Court to exonerate him in view of the above order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16