Quashed

Sri R Krishnan v. Sri S v Srinivasa Rao

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRL.P/2533/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings initiated via summons under a private complaint alleging defamation for forgery, holding that the absence of publication of imputation makes taking cognizance of Section 499 IPC impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.33994/2018 pending before the XLIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.

Sri R Krishnan Vs Sri S v Srinivasa Rao — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2533 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. R. KRISHNAN, S/O K.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O FLAT E 4 HIRANYA APARTMENTS, OLD NO.567, NEW NO.84, GREENWAYS ROAD EXTENSION, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI. S. V. SRINIVASA RAO, S/O S.VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.P-5, 25TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, I-PHASE, LIC COLONY, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.127, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 OF ISSUANCE OF PROCESS BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE AT 44th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BANGALORE IN PCR NO.4310/2018 OF C.C.NO.33994/2018 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IN CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE A BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner herein had filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC against respondent-complainant herein for making certain derogatory remarks. The said complaint came to be dismissed acquitting the respondent for the aforesaid offences. After acquittal, the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC alleging that the petitioner defamed him by creating false documents.

¶18

¶19

Learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the respondent-complainant, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶21

submits that in the absence of any publication of derogatory remarks as against respondent-Complainant, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same is impermissible. He further submits that the very same Court which has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 211 of Cr.P.C. has held that the documents which are alleged to have been forged and fabricated are admitted by the respondentComplainant. Hence, he submits that in the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute commission of

¶22

¶23

offence alleged against the petitioner, the cognizance taken is impermissible.

¶24

I have considered the submission made by

¶25

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

The allegations of the complainant is that the petitioner by fabricating and forging the documents has filed a false complaint so as to defame him. To constitute commission of offence under Section 499 of IPC, a person must have spoken or intended to be read or by sign or by visible representation should have made or published any imputation on any person with an intention to harm. In the present case, the only allegation is that the petitioner defamed him by creating false documents. In the absence of publication of any words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, the learned Magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC.

¶27

¶28

Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance

¶29

of the offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC in C.C.No.29443/2018 has held that the documents alleged to have been forged and fabricated documents are admitted by the complainant and it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused has created a false evidence so as to constitute commission of offence punishable under Section 193 and 196 of IPC.

¶30

In view of preceding analysis, I am of the view that in the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute commission of offence under Section 499 of IPC, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

¶34

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶35

C.C.No.33994/2018 pending on the file of XLIV ACMM

¶36

Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/- JUDGE

¶38

RKA

Sri R Krishnan v. Sri S v Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Krishnan v. Sri S v Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vijayalaxmi Vs Miss Sandhya Kiran

Smt. Maheshwari Dhongadi Vs Sri. Narayankumar Raibagi

M Thippesamy Vs H C Indramma

Gayathri Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayanthi Vs State of Karnataka by