Allowed

M. Manjunath v. Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2022CRL.P/4962/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal PETITION filed to quash an impugned order directing registration of a defamation case. The High Court held that the complaint failed to disclose essential ingredients of the offence as the alleged hand bills were not shown to be distributed by petitioners to harm reputation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned order dated 7.9.2009 in Cr.R.P.No.137/2006 quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos. 3, 4, and 6.

M. Manjunath Vs Suresh Mahalingappa Latur — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4962/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE P. MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A "KUSHI", NO.36/1 OLD 10TH CROSS, 4TH NEW CROSS GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶9

C MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE P. HANUMANTHAIAH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶11

NOW AT NO. 455, 13TH CROSS, F BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092, ALSO AT NO.36, 5TH CROSS, S.P. EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.

¶12

SMT T.G. BHUVANESHWARI W/O VEERA NAIK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.419, 7TH PHASE III BLOCK, OPP ROYAL PARK J P NAGAR (ANJANAPURA) AVALAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI K. DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

SURESH MAHALINGAPPA LATUR S/O MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ADVOCATE, R/AT NO.4, SECTOR A AMRUTHNAGAR, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.09.2009 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.137/2006 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF FTC-1, BENGALURU CITY DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO REGISTER A CASE AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 500 OF IPC AND ISSUE PROCESS.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Private complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC alleging that petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 and other accused who were the members of the managing committee of the Society in question distributed the hand bills to the members of the Society and also to the advocate

¶24

¶25

fraternity making derogatory remarks against the complainant and in view of the same the complainant lost the election to the managing committee of the Society in question.

¶26

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement dismissed the private complaint filed by the respondent stating that the allegation made in the complaint does not satisfy any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, against which, the complainant filed the revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint insofar it related to accused Nos.1 to 6 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate insofar it related to accused No.7 and further directed the learned Magistrate to register the case and issue summons to the accused. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-

¶30

accused submits that the complaint does not disclose the statement made in the hand bill is derogatory so as to intend or cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. Hence, he submits that the allegations made in the compliant does not satisfy any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and the learned Sessions Judge, ignoring this material aspect has passed the impugned order and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant submits that the allegations made in the complaint clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused and the learned Session Judge taking into account the allegations made in the complaint has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the same.

¶32

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

¶34

The allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioners-accused and other accused who are the members of

¶35

the managing committee of the society in question have distributed the hand bills to the members of the society and also to the advocate fraternity containing derogatory remarks against the complainant and as a result of which the complainant lost the election to the managing committee of the society in question. The complaint does not disclose that as to which are the allegations made in the hand bill are derogatory and also the said derogatory remarks have resulted in intentionally damaging the reputation of the complainant and in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law.

¶36

To constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC, a person, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning

¶37

¶38

any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame the person.

¶39

In the present case, there is no allegation made in the complaint that the petitioners-accused with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant have distributed the hand bills containing derogatory remarks against the complainant and the complaint also does not disclose as to which are the statements made in the hand bill are derogatory and in the absence of the same, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned order to form an opinion that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitionersaccused only on the ground that the petitioners-accused are the signatories to the complaint lodged by them with the Joint Registrar's of Societies to take appropriate action against the complainant for mis-appropriating the funds of the society.

¶40

Merely because the petitioners-accused are the signatories to the complaint, wherein, the allegations made in

¶41

¶42

the hand bill are similar, it cannot be construed that the petitioners-accused have distributed the hand bill to the members of the society in question and also to the advocate fraternity. Hence, in the absence of any material that the hand bills were distributed by the petitioners-accused, the impugned order passed by the learned Session Judge is not sustainable in law.

¶43

Even otherwise, the complainant has not examined any witnesses before the learned Magistrate to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners-accused have distributed the hand bills containing derogatory remarks against the complainant to the members of the society in question and also to the advocate fraternity.

¶44

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that, in the absence any material that, the petitioners-accused have distributed the hand bills making derogatory remarks against the complainant so as to damage the reputation of the complainant, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law.

¶45

¶46

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Criminal petition is allowed

¶49

ii) The impugned order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-1, Bangalore City, in Cr.R.P.No.137/2006 insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 is hereby quashed.

¶50

In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A No.1/2018 and I.A.No.1/2020 do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

HR

M. Manjunath v. Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Manjunath v. Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

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

M/S Spi Green Energy Vs the State of Karnataka

Rosemary Ratnam Vs Anam Hussain (Minor)

Sri.D. Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka by

Subramanya Vs State by

B.K. Manju Vs State by Bagalur Police

Brundha Vs State by K R Nagara Police