Allowed

Anitha Pinto v. Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2023CRL.P/1585/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged cognizance of defamation proceedings. Court held lodging complaints without publication does not constitute defamation. Found trial court insufficiently relied on self-serving testimony for Section 499 IPC cognizance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order taking cognizance under Sections 500, 501, 502 IPC quashed and case remitted to trial court to examine witnesses regarding incident on 27.04.2012.

Anitha Pinto Vs Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANITHA PINTO, W/O LANCY PINTO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT C-1, ANNA VISTA APARTMENTS, 1^ST FLOOR, KADRI, MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶8

GRACY PINTO, W/O HENRY PINTO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SOMESHWARA RESIDENCY, APARTMENTS, LOWER BENDORE, DOMINO'S ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

HEZAL GLANET PINTO, W/O ANTONY CARDOZA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT SOMESHWARA RESIDENCY, APARTMENTS, LOWER BENDORE, DOMINO'S ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶11

MOLLY TELLIS, D/O LILLY D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BADAGA ULIPADY, POST: GANJIMUT, MALALI CORSS, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 144.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶15

AND:

¶16

RESPONDENT NO. 1 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023

¶17

REV. DR. G.ANDREW RICHARD, S/O MR. XAVIOR GOKULA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS PREACHER AND RELIGIOUS PERFORMER, MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶18

A. ISAAC RICHARD, S/O REV.DR.G. ANDREW RICHARD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT CELESTE APARTMENTS, MERCARA HILL ROAD, BENDOOR, MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2521/2012 IN P.C.NO.111/2012 PENDING BEFORE THE J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MANGALURU, D.K., FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 500, 501 AND 502 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court challenging the prosecution initiated against them in C.C.No.2521/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code, 1908 pending trial before the JMFC III Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court').

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶27

The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in PCR No.111/2012 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was alleged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioners had filed a false and malicious complaint on 19.04.2012 before the Mangalore South Police Station where they had made reckless, defamatory and false allegations against respondent No.1 that he was cheating people by collecting huge sum of money and gold ornaments and was constructing a retreat house to organize free food for the poor. He alleged that the petitioners had accused that respondent No.1 was misappropriating the money and ornaments for his own benefit. Further, he claimed that petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mangalore on 03.05.2012 where he alleged defamatory and false accusations against respondent No.1 and his trust that respondent No.1 is a cheat and was cheating people by falsely claiming that he was a Catholic by showing Christian religious photographs and that he was robbing huge money from people through sorcery and that respondent No.1 had purchased huge property in his own name, from the money which was collected from the people. He also alleged that respondent No.1 was holding fake passports

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶30

and that he was having money in various bank accounts opened in the names of relatives and was converting black money into white. Further, he claimed that petitioners alleged that respondent No.1 was unlawfully earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per day through false religious and charitable promises to people and was exploiting women who were attending the functions of respondent No.1. He also alleged that, on 27.04.2012 all the accused gathered at "Samridhi Lodge" where the respondents were holding mass on 27.04.2012 and started shouting that respondent No.1 was a cheat and was exploiting women in the name of religion. They alleged that several hundred people who were gathered there witnessed the alleged defamatory and criminal acts alleged against them by the accused. They claimed that the allegations made by the accused were published in a newspaper on 28.04.2012. Thus, he alleged that all the accused with a common intent had defamed them.

¶31

The Trial Court recorded the pre-summons evidence of respondent No.1 and considered the material on record and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of IPC and issued process to the accused.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶34

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1 to 4/petitioners have filed this petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners had merely lodged a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police and therefore lodging a complaint would not amount to publishing any defamatory article against the respondents and thus did not constitute an offence of defamation and therefore, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences.

¶36

He further contended that the only allegation found in the private complaint was that on 27.04.2012 all the accused had gathered at "Samridhi Lodge" where the accused referred to respondent No.1 as a cheat and was exploiting women in the name of religion and making huge money for himself. He contended that in the private complaint, two persons were cited as witnesses and therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have recorded the sworn statement of those two persons to ascertain whether the incident on 27.04.2012 had indeed happened or not and whether the accused/petitioners Nos.1 to 4 had referred to respondent No.1 as a cheat and that

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶38

he was exploiting women in the name of religion. He submitted that without the pre-summons evidence of those two witnesses, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance as the material placed by respondent No.1 was not sufficient, as cognizance could not be taken on the basis of the self-serving sworn statement of respondent No.1.

¶39

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondents contended that the complaints lodged by the respondents against the petitioners before the Jurisdictional Police itself indicated the defamatory and reckless allegations against respondent No.1 and therefore, the same amounted to a defamatory utterance without any basis. He further contended on 27.04.2012, the accused had all ganged up and referred respondent No.1 as a cheat and that he was exploiting women in the name of religion, which itself was defamatory and therefore, the trial Court had rightly taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. He also submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner were all published next day in 'Karavali Ale', 'Jayakirana' etc., and therefore, there is evidence on record to indicate that the accused/petitioners

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶42

had made such defamatory utterances against respondent No.1.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶44

Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4/petitioners herein did not dispute the fact that they had lodged a complaint on 19.04.2012 before the Mangalore South Police Station where they had alleged that respondent No.1 was a cheat and was misusing money collected from the devotees. The accused No.1/petitioner No.1 had also lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner on 03.05.2012 containing similar allegations. However, mere lodging complaints before the jurisdictional police perse would not amount to defamation, but the same must be published for the consumption of the general public in some manner, which is sine qua non for an offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. The question whether the allegations made in the complaints lodged by the petitioners is in the interest of the general public or not is definitely a question of fact that has to be established before the Court if it is found that the allegations made therein are baseless, a case

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:32444 CRL.P No. 1585 of 2020

¶46

for prosecution under Section 499 of IPC may probably be made out.

¶47

In so far as the incident that allegedly happened on 27.04.2012, the trial Court must have examined the two witnesses who would have thrown light on the incident and also the involvement of the petitioners herein. The trial Court had taken cognizance based on the mere self-serving testimony of respondent No.1 which was not sufficient to take cognizance for an offence under Section 499 of IPC.

¶48

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of IPC is hereby quashed and the case is remitted back to the trial Court, which shall examine the two witnesses mentioned in the private complaint, particularly, in respect of the incident that allegedly happened on 27.04.2012 and thereafter, take suitable steps in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

CT: ABS

Anitha Pinto v. Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Pinto v. Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard

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

Venkatesh N Vs Regional Passport Officer

Mr C v Vasantha Madavan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt H T Jayalakshmi Vs the Commissioner

Sri Devaraju Vs the State by Hassan Women Police Station

Britannia Industries Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Krishne Urs Vs Sri Rajiv B Urs