Allowed

Chaitanya Kalbag v. Shri Jayakumar Hiremath

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021CRL.P/1289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC praying to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1978/2015. The Court relied on a prior Supreme Court order which held that the complaint averments did not make out an offence under Section 295A IPC and that a mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC was not conducted. The Court quashed the proceedings as they amounted to an abuse of proce

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1978/2015 against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Chaitanya Kalbag Vs Shri Jayakumar Hiremath — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1289 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHAITANYA KALBAG AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O NAGESH KALBAG, AT 189, NATIONAL MEDIA CENTRE, NH-8, NEAR SHANKAR CHOWK, GURGOAN – 122 002 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.PUNEET JAIN

¶10

SUVEEN K SINHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE ATINDRA KUMAR SINHA , R/AT 417, ARIHANT HARMONY, PLOT NO.8, AHINSA KHAND II, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201 014 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.PUNEET JAIN

¶11

ASHISH BAGGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O BASANT LAL BAGGA, (PRINTER AND PUBLISHER), BUSINESS TODAY, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT INDIA TODAY MEDIA PLEX, F.C/8, SECTOR 16/A, FILM CITY, NOIDA - 201 301 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

DR.PUNEET JAIN

SANTOSH KUSHWAHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O BHAIRO PRASAD KUSHWAHA, RESIDING AT F-1,171/6, VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH – 201 010, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.PUNEET JAIN ...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SHRI.JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH SON OF LATE DR. C.K. HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.441, “MATHRUKRUPE”, 10^TH CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, 6^TH BLOCK, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 072 ...RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2015 PASSED BY COURT OF IX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE PASSED IN CRIMINAL BEARING NO.1978/2015 (ANNEXURE-A) AND PURSUANT THERETO AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1978/2015 on the file of IX

¶24

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

¶25

¶26

Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 to 6 in the said case.

¶27

The respondent has filed complaint against the petitioners and two others in PCR No.8584/2013 seeking their prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 295(A) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶28

Accused No.1 Mahendra Singh Dhoni is the cricketer, accused No.2 is the Editor, accused No.3 is the Editor-In-Chief, accused No.4 is the Executive Editor, accused No.5 is the Chief Executive Officer and accused No.6 is the Chief Visualiser of “Business Today” a Fort Nightly Magazine.

¶29

The said magazine published an advertisement on its cover page as per Annexure-D. The advertisement portrayed accused No.1 in the form of Lord Vishnu holding those consumer products in his hands for advertisement.

¶30

Respondent No.2 in his compliant claimed that by such portraying, the accused have insulted the religious

¶31

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

¶32

¶33

sentiments of Hindus, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 295(A) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶34

Learned Magistrate on recording the sworn statement of the complainant by order dated 17.01.2015 at Annexure-A took cognizance of the offence and ordered to issue process against the accused for facing trial.

¶35

Accused No.3 filed Crl.P.No.7403/2015 before this Court for quashing the said proceedings. This Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that against the order of issuing process, revision petition lies. He challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.843/2016 arising out of SLP (Crl.P.No.6739/2015).

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 05.09.2016 allowed the said petitions on the following two grounds:-

¶37

i. Since the said accused reside outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, before

¶38

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

¶39

¶40

issuing process conducting an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. was mandatory and that was not followed.

¶41

ii. The complaint averments do not make out an offence under Section 295A read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

The petitioners herein are also residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Secondly, the observation with regard to the allegations not making out an offence was with reference to Section 295(A) of IPC as well as Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.843/2016.

¶43

In view of such order of the Supreme Court, even if the proceeding against the petitioners continues, there is no chance of their conviction. Such proceedings amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶44

CRL.P.NO.1289/2017

¶45

¶46

The proceedings in C.C.No.1958/2015 against petitioners on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 295(A) read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

GJM

Chaitanya Kalbag v. Shri Jayakumar Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitanya Kalbag v. Shri Jayakumar Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State by the Enforcement Officer

M/S Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State by the Enforcement Officer

M/S Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State by the Enforcement Officer

K Manjappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Trishla Minerals Vs M/S. Champions

Murali B D Vs State of Karnataka