Dismissed

A.P.Velayudhan v. Marattukulam M K

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2021CRL.P/5500/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for defamation (IPC 500). It held that specific allegations in a plaint and a public resolution did not automatically fall under Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, necessitating a trial to determine intent to disrepute.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; Trial Court directed to proceed with the case.

A.P.Velayudhan Vs Marattukulam M K — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5500/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

A.P. VELAYUDHAN S/O LATE M PALANI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.120, 6^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560038.

¶8

… PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MARATTUKULAM M.K., S/O K.T.MARATTUKULAM, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, VILLA-14, “PRESTIGE CEDAR”, CONVENT ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025

¶11

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.50533/2017 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ACMM, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 500 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.50533/2017 on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

¶17

The factual matrix of the case is that the suit in O.S.No.29541/2012 is filed against the respondent herein. In para No.10 of the plaint, an allegation is made against this petitioner that he being the President, has misused his office and authority in the Bangalore Club to settle personal scores and has shown scant respect for the Rules and Bye-Laws of the Bangalore Club and above all else, the Laws of the Land. He has restored to suspension of Members, victimization of applicants for membership and guests in the Club and indulged in frivolous litigation causing huge financial losses to the Club. He has neglected and rendered non-est resolutions and decisions made by the General Body and former General Committees to subserve his devious ends causing embarrassment to the Club

¶18

¶19

and its members and heavy financial losses thereby. He has willfully failed to take preventive action against delinquents in the Club leading to feelings and sentiments of discontent amongst its members. He has also been unable to maintain law and order in the Club and to protect its membership from trespassers and rapists on the prowl. He has indulged in sexual harassment and can truly be characterized a male chauvinist leading to a complaint being lodged before the Karnataka State Women’s Commission against him. He has also abused the process of law and has left the membership of the Club in disarray, discontent and desperate. Hence, taking note of the averment made in para No.10 of the plaint, the respondent herein had filed the complaint in PCR No.51234/2014 reiterating the averments made in para No.10 of the plaint contending that the said statement made in the plaint disreputes him. He also referred to the resolution passed on 01.07.2012.

¶20

In support of the complaint, the respondent has

¶21

been examined before the Trial Court and his sworn statement was recorded on 03.10.2016. The Trial Court, after considering

¶22

¶23

the complaint averments and also sworn statement, issued the process against this petitioner and also the other petitioners by passing the reasoned order. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.1 challenging the said order.

¶24

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner before this Court is that the averments made in the plaint do not constitute an offence and also the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC is very

¶26

clear that the same would not tarnish the image of the respondent in the estimation of the others and reputation was not lowered, and the same would comes within the purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC. Hence, learned counsel would vehemently contend that there cannot be any criminal prosecution against this petitioner and if any proceedings is continued, it amounts to an abuse of process.

¶27

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the allegation made in para No.10 of the plaint in the original suit in O.S.No.29541/2012 constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Apart from that even they have passed the resolution against the respondent herein, who was the President of the Bengaluru Club disreputing his image. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the respondent was working as a President and the allegation against him is that he has not taken any steps to protect the interest of the lady member and also he has not provided any security to the members of the Club. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court para No.10, wherein it is alleged against this petitioner that he indulged in sexual harassment.

¶29

Learned counsel in support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sushma Rani v. H.N.Nagaraja Rao reported in 2020 SCC Online KAR. 1913 and brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.28 to 32 which deals with regard to the publication of defamatory

¶30

¶31

statement. In para No.32, this Court held that in the form of statement of objections, in the matrimonial case, she has also revealed the contents of the same to the relatives and a friend of the complainant, which clearly establishes that there was publication as required under Section 499 of IPC of the alleged defamatory statement by the accused. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the sworn statement of the complainant/respondent, wherein he also reiterated the averments of the complaint and learned Magistrate also passed a reasoned order, particularly, with regard to disreputing the image of the petitioner by lowering the moral character of the respondent herein. Learned counsel also would submit that other accused persons have also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2902/2017 and the said petition is similarly placed and this Court vide detailed order dated 24.03.2020 rejected the petition. There is no any changed circumstances or any factors to deviate from the order passed by this Court.

¶33

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and so also on perusal of the material available on record, this Court has to look into the averments made in para No.10 of the plaint. This Court had already mentioned the averments made in para No.10 of the plaint, particularly, a reference is made that the respondent has indulged in sexual harassment and can truly be characterized a male chauvinist leading to a complaint being lodged before the Karnataka State Women’s Commission against him and other allegations are also made against the respondent.

¶35

The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said allegations would come within the purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC, as per which in the estimation of others, the reputation of the respondent has not been lowered. When the specific allegation is made in the complaint against this petitioner and also no doubt, the said suit was withdrawn and apart from that the resolution was also passed against the respondent and when the complainant/respondent also examined before the Trial Court

¶36

¶37

and in his sworn statement, he reiterated the averments made in para No.10 of the plaint and he has also given the evidence that due to the act of the petitioner herein and other accused persons, it has resulted in disreputing the image in the general public and also the same has lowered the respect of the respondent, who served as a President of the Club,.

¶38

Having taken note of the material available on record, particularly, para No.10 of the plaint and also the allegations made in the complaint and so also the sworn statement, this Court had dealt with the matter in detail in Crl.P.No.2902/2017. The petitioner herein is also similarly placed in view of the specific allegations made in the plaint. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the respondent’s counsel that this Court cannot deviate from the decision which had already been rendered by this Court. Having perused the material available on record, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same would come within the purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC, cannot be accepted and the matter requires trial so as to ascertain whether

¶39

¶40

with an intention to disrepute the respondent, the petitioner herein had made such statement or not. The very intention of the petitioner herein also to be examined by the Trial Court by conducting a full fledged trial as to whether it constitutes an offence under Section 500 of IPC.

¶41

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The petition is hereby rejected.

¶44

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the

¶45

matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶46

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A., if any does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

PYR

A.P.Velayudhan v. Marattukulam M K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Velayudhan v. Marattukulam M K

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

Vinod Vs State by K.G. Halli Police Station

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vinayak B Kale Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Subhash Chandra Vs State by K.R.Pete Rural Police Station

Sri M N Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka