Criminal Petition filed to quash defamation proceedings. Court held that the defence of good faith is a matter for trial and the Magistrate correctly applied mind. Petition dismissed.
Criminal Petition No.101742 of 2023 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101742 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ROHIT N. LATUR FOR SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.16 11:12:20 +0530
DR. UMESH S. VANAHALLI, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. MAHALINGAPUR, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587312.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.419/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.500 R/W S.34 OF IPC AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND ACCUSED NO.2 RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.419/2023, pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti registered for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC and a case came to be registered in C.C.No.419/2023, pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the said criminal case.
contend that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind at the time of ordering issuance of process. On that point, he places decisions of this Court in the case of Sri Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs Sri K. Koteswar Rao1 . He further contends that the alleged act does not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. He contends that there is no intention on the part of petitioners to defame the respondent. On perusal of the said invitation card even after striking out, the name of respondent is not visible. The case of petitioners comes under exception III. He contends that
1 Criminal Petition No.101127/2015, decided on 17.02.2022.
the act of petitioners is taken in good faith. With this, he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings of the criminal case registered against these petitioners.
would contend that respondent who is a elected member of Journalist Society, Mahalingapur requested the petitioners not to print his name in any of the functions of Journalist Society. He contends that the petitioners with an mala-fide intention inspite of request made by respondent, printed his name in the invitation Card and strike it of with pen and even inspite of striking out, the name of respondent is visible and the said act has effected the reputation of respondent in the society as he is reputed doctor practicing on Homeopathy and he is producing Homeopathy medicine. The sworn statement of CWs.1 and 2 clearly makes out the offence under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate by his detailed order taking into consideration facts of case applied his mind and has ordered to issue
process against these petitioners. There are no grounds for quashing of the proceedings. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
the Court has perused the records.
doctor practicing on Homeopathy in Mahalingapur. It is also not in dispute that respondent was earlier a President of the Journalist Society, Mahalingapur. It is not in dispute that respondent was a elected member even during the year 2020. As per the averments made in the complaint, respondent requested the petitioners not to get printed his
name in any of the newspapers or functions of Journalist Society. The Invitation Card for celebration of ‘Newspaper Day-2020’ has been got printed by the petitioners. The name of this respondent has been printed as one of the office bearer of the Journalist Society, Mahalingapura. On perusal of the said printed Invitation Card, there is striking out of the name of respondent. The name of the
respondent even though he is a member has been printed on the top of invitation card above the name of President, Secretary and other members. The said Invitation Card has been distributed among the members and others who are invited to the celebration. Even though respondent has requested the petitioners not to print his name, the petitioners got printed his name in the Invitation Card and subsequently, striked out his name. Some of the invitees to whom the Invitation Card is distributed may be other elected members and members of the Journalist Society, Mahalingapur. They are aware of the respondent being one of the office bearers of the Journalist Society, Mahalingapur. It is natural that the invitee, who receives the invitation, think why his name is printed and why for his name is striked out. The intention of petitioners cannot be ascertained at this stage for getting printed name of respondent and striking it out. Whether the petitioners got it done in a good faith or not to attract III exception. The III exception is one of the defence to be taken up by the petitioners at the trial.
registration of a criminal case against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. On perusal of the averments of the said order, learned Magistrate has applied his mind while passing of the said order. The petitioners have not made out any grounds for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case registered against them.
Sd/JUDGE
AM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the criminal proceedings registered for defamation against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs Sri K. Koteswar RaoReferred¶27
Sri Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs Sri K. Koteswar Rao
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri. Shivaray S/O Sharanappa Ishwarappagol
Shri. Mahesh S/O Veeresh Ari
Vijayalakshmi M Kankuppi
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
