Dismissed

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan v. Ms G Sree Vidhya

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023CRL.RP/365/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue Bench disposed of the Criminal Revision Petition seeking modification of the order rejecting the complaint against accused nos. 2 to 6. Held that the Magistrate was justified as no prima facie case against them was made out.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed refusing modification of the order; Complainant may invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial.

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan Vs Ms G… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL. R.P. NO. 365 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

COMMANDANT (RETD) BALASUBRAMANIAN MOHAN S/O (LATE) S. BALASUBRAMAIAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS APARTMENT NO.507, BLCOK JULIAN ALPINE ECO APARTMENTS DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHALLI BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. M.D. ANURADHA URS, ADV., FOR SRI C.V. SUDHINDRA., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MS. G. SREE VIDHYA D/O SRI SGNANASKANDAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHAIRPERSON AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAVINDRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, OLD NO.13/14 NEW NO.26, 2ND FLOOR SREYAS VIRAT, 3RD CROSS ROAD OPPOSITE TO SANTEETHA HOTEL RAJA ANNAMALAI PURAM CHENNAI - 600 028.

¶14

THE HINDU NEWSPAPER REPRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF KASTURI & SONS LTD OWNERS, PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS OFF THE HINDU NEWSPAPER KASTURI BUILDING, 859-860 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶15

MS RASHEEDA BHAGAT FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE COMPALINANT AGED MAJOR CORRESPONDENT/REPORTER "THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE AND

¶16

¶17

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶18

WEEKEND LIFE", THE HINDU NEWSPAPER KASTURI BUILDING, 859-860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶19

SRI D. SAMPATHKUMAR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT AGED MAJOR THE EDITOR, "THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE AND WEEKEND LIFE" THE HINDU NEWSPAPER KASTURI BUILIDNG, 859-860, ANNA SLALI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶20

SRI SIDDARTH VARADARAJAN FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT, AGED MAJOR THE EDITOR ,"THE HINDU NEWPAPER" KASTURI BUILDING, 859-860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶21

SRI K. BALAJI FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT AGED MAJOR THE PUBLISHER THE HINDU NEWSPAPER KASTURI BUILDING, 859-860 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADV., FOR R-1 - ABSENT; SRI K.S. HARISH, ADV., FOR R-2 TO R-6)

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE X ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN PCR NO.19/13 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE ORDER PERTAINS THE REJECTION OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2 TO NO.6 AND OTHER OFFENCES, FURTHER ORDER ISSUE OF PROCESS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 469,499,500,501 AND 502 R/W 120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the complainant assailing the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in PCR No.19/2013 by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate has directed to register case only against accused no.1 and has rejected the complaint against accused nos.2 to 6.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶30

The complainant had filed private complaint before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) against his ex-wife, who was arrayed as accused no.1 and also against respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 469, 499, 500, 501 and 502 R/w 120(B) of IPC. The learned Magistrate thereafter had recorded a sworn statement of the complainant and also recorded statement of two other witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant and vide the order impugned had directed to issue summons only to accused

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶33

no.1/respondent no.1 herein and rejected the complaint as against other accused persons on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had failed to make out any prima facie case as against the said accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has made specific averments in the complaint with regard to conspiracy of other accused persons and having regard to the nature of allegation made against them, the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint against them at this stage. She submits that accused no.3 is the reporter, accused nos.4 and 5 are the editors and accused no.6 is the publisher of the newspaper. As against all accused persons there are allegations made in the complaint. She also submits that exception under Section 499 of Cr.P.C., would be available to the accused persons only as a defence and even before issuing summons to the accused persons, the learned Magistrate could not have recorded any findings that the accused persons are saved by exception to Section 499 of IPC.

¶35

¶36

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶37

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶38

nos.2 to 6 submits that the alleged publication in the newspaper is not a news item but they are excerpts of interview of accused no.1. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that accused no.4 and 5 are editors of newspaper and accused no.6 is the publisher of the newspaper. The complainant has not produced any material to establish this before the learned Magistrate. He submits that the said respondents have given reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant stating that they do not have personal knowledge of statements which were made by accused no.1. He submits that in view of Section of 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 only the chief editor would be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 499 of IPC. He therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶39

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record.

¶40

From the perusal of the newspaper in which article carrying alleged defamatory material is published it is seen that

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶43

the said article relates to the excerpts of the interview of accused no.1 and the alleged defamatory statements are made by accused no.1 during the course of her interview. Prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant had issued a legal notice to accused no.1 and she has replied to the same and perusal of said reply shows that she has not denied the alleged statement made by her in the news paper. In addition to the same, the complainant had not produced any material before the learned Magistrate to show that there was any conspiracy between accused no.1 and accused nos.2 to 6 in publishing the news article. The material on record would also go to show that accused nos.4 and 5 are described as editors of newspaper and accused no.6 as publisher of the newspaper. The chief editor of the newspaper is not arrayed as an accused.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate even before this Court that accused nos.4 and 5 are in fact the editors of the newspaper and accused no.6 is the publisher of the newspaper. In a criminal case wherein several persons are arrayed as accused, the Magistrate before issuing summons to all the accused persons is required to satisfy himself as to whether the complainant has made out any

¶45

7 - CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶46

prima-facie case as against all the accused persons. It is only after, he satisfies himself in this regard, he can issue summons to the said accused persons. In the absence of any prima-facie material as against some of the accused persons, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to issue summons to the said accused persons, merely for the reasons that the complainant has arrayed them as accused with a allegation that they have conspired with other accused persons. It is for the complainant to prove the alleged conspiracy in respect of those accused.

¶47

In the present case, the learned Magistrate on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which was made available to him has arrived at a conclusion at this stage that the complainant has not made out any case against accused nos.2 to 6 and therefore, he has issued summons only to accused no.1 and rejected complaint against accused nos.2 to 6. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is always open for the complainant to produce all materials before the learned Magistrate during the course of the trial so as to establish that even other accused persons, who are named in the complaint are also liable to be tried for the alleged offences and in the

¶48

¶49

CRL.RP No. 365 of 2014

¶50

event, such materials be produced by the complainant before the trial Court, the complainant is at liberty to file necessary application invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which would be required to be considered in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate.

¶51

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

NMS

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan v. Ms G Sree Vidhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan v. Ms G Sree Vidhya

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

Sri.K.Lokesh Vs Mohan Kumar

Sri. Siddeshwara Gowda Vs Sri. Jyothi Jagadheeshappa

M/S Sai Mitra Constructions Vs Mrs. B Vijayalakshmi

M Lokesh Vs K Madhusudhana

K Aruna Vs State of Karnataka

D.S. Parashivu Vs M/S. Associated Electrical Agencies