Dismissed¶102

Smt K N Kusuma v. Sri K S Madhu

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2025CRL.P/9968/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defamation - private complaint under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC (C.C.No.722/2018, earlier PCR No.264/2024, Civil Judge & JMFC Ponnampet) - quashing sought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (caption also invokes S.528 BNNS) - article in Shakthi/Shakti newspaper following Grama Panchayat proceedings on petitioner No.1's complaint - Grama Panchayat endorsement found complaint frivolous - Court: allegations at face value disclose cognizable offence, sufficient ground to proceed, no Section 482 quashing - Section 499 IPC exceptions and good faith of reporter/editor left to trial - omission of complainant's name in article not a complete defence - petition dismissed, contentions open. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed and all contentions kept open. ¶102

Smt K N Kusuma Vs Sri K S Madhu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed and all contentions kept open.

¶102

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.722/2018 (offences under Sections 500-502 IPC) pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Ponnampet should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. insofar as the petitioners are concerned. +2 more

¶33

Court's answer

This is not a case warranting the exercise of the Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

On reading the extracted portions and assessing the material, this Court held there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners, the nature of the allegations taken at face value disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.

¶83

Key takeaways

The proceedings pending in C.C.No.722/2018 cannot be quashed at this stage; the material on record prima facie indicates the allegations require judicial scrutiny by the trial Court, the case raises factual disputes unresolvable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and a full-fledged trial is warranted.ratio¶87
Whether the actions of petitioner No.1 fall within any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, and likewise whether accused Nos.3 and 4 (the Reporter and Editor) acted in good faith or their conduct attracts any statutory exception, are questions of fact to be adjudicated during trial.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), by order dated 30-07-2025 in CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024, dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of C.C.No.722/2018 (private complaint earlier registered as PCR No.264/2024) instituted by K.S. Madhu under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC against K.N. Kusuma, PDO M.S. Rajesh, reporter T.L. Srinivasa and 'Shakti' daily editor G. Chidvilas, arising out of Grama Panchayat proceedings on Kusuma's harassment complaint and the subsequent publication of an article in the Shakthi newspaper (Madikeri edition). Held: the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and there is sufficient ground to proceed, so the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not attracted; whether petitioner No.1's conduct falls within the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, and whether the reporter and editor acted in good faith or attract any statutory exception, are questions of fact for trial; the omission of the complainant's name from the article is not conclusive since the underlying complaint names him and its contents were read out at the Gram Sabha. A full-fledged trial was held warranted; all contentions kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9968 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K.N. KUSUMA

¶9

W/O LATE K.B. NANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A KOTHOORU VILLAGE AND POST PONNAMPET HOBLI VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571216.

¶10

SRI. M.S. RAJESH

¶11

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AGED MAJOR KANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KANOOR TOWN AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KODAGU DISTRICT-571216.

¶14

SRI. T.L. SRINIVASA S/O LATE T.B. LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5TH BLOCK MAIN ROAD GONIKOPPAL TOWN AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571212.

¶15

G. CHIDVILAS AGED MAJOR EDITOR OF M S SHAKTHI DAILY NEWSPAPER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MADIKERI TOWN AND POST KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DIVYATEJ H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. K.S. MADHU

¶24

S/O SOMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KOTHOORU VILLAGE AND POST PONNAMPET HOBLI VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571216.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. TUSHAR ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLIANT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT IN PCR NO.264/2024 WHICH IS LATER NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.722/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 500,501,502 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET VIDE ANNEXUREA IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.722/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of IPC.

¶34

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶35

The respondent/complainant has instituted a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that petitioner No.1 had lodged a frivolous complaint addressed to the President of Kanooru Grama Panchayath, wherein she accused the respondent/complainant of forging her signature and unlawfully applying for mutation before the Tahsildar, Virajpet, in respect of certain properties allegedly owned by her. Acting upon this complaint, it is alleged that petitioner No.2, the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), petitioner No.3, a reporter, and petitioner No.4, the Editor of Shakti newspaper, published an article based on the said proceedings. The

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

respondent/complainant contends that the publication of

¶39

this article has damaged his reputation, and that the proceedings in the Gram Sabha, being based on a false and malicious complaint, were orchestrated to defame him. Consequently, the private complaint alleges offences attributable to all four petitioners.

¶40

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance of the complaint without any application of mind, and that the continuation of such proceedings would result in a gross abuse of the process of law.

¶41

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the impugned article makes it evident that there is no specific reference to the name of the respondent/complainant. He further submitted that petitioner No.2, being the PDO,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

merely placed the complaint of petitioner No.1 before the Gram Panchayat for its consideration, which led to the conduct of proceedings. The published article, it is argued, neither discloses any imputations nor contains any elements constituting an offence under Section 499 IPC. He contended that even if the entire contents of the complaint are taken at face value, no offence is made out, and at best, the proceedings would culminate in an acquittal. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

¶45

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted

¶46

that the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 before the Grama Panchayat discloses allegations of harassment by her family members. He submitted that it was within the jurisdictional competence of the Panchayat officials to conduct proceedings on the basis of such a complaint. The

¶47

mere fact that such proceedings were followed by publication in a newspaper does not, by itself, constitute

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

defamation. Accordingly, he urged this Court to quash the proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice.

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant sought to justify the maintainability of the complaint. Referring to specific portions of the published article and the concluding part of petitioner No.1’s original complaint, he submitted that the respondent/complainant has been explicitly named, and serious allegations have been levelled against him. Therefore, he contended that the act of publishing such material in the public domain has directly caused damage to the complainant's reputation.

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on an endorsement issued by the Grama Panchayat, wherein the officials, after considering the complaint filed by petitioner No.1, found the allegations to be frivolous. He contended that such an endorsement, which forms part of the material placed by the petitioners

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

themselves, fortifies the complainant's case that the publication was defamatory and malicious in nature.

¶58

This Court has heard the learned Senior

¶59

Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and has perused the material placed on record.

¶60

Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions and examining the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to extract the relevant portions of the complaint and the published article, which form the foundation of the present proceedings. These extracts are of critical importance to determine whether

¶61

the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to warrant continuation of criminal proceedings.

¶62

"………………..�ಾಗೂ ತ��ದ�� ನನಗೂ ಮತು� ನನ� ಮಕ��ಗೂ �ೕ�ಸಲು �ೇ�ೆ �ಾವ !ೇ ಆ#� ಮತು� ವರ%ಾನ ಇರುವ 'ಲ� �ಾಗೂ �ಧ)ೆ �ೆಂಗ#+ೆ ಸರ,ಾರ'ಂದ ರ-.ೆ ಕೂಡ ಇರುವ 'ಲ� �ಾಗೂ ,ೊ0ೆಯ!ಾ2 ನನ+ೆ ಬದುಕಲು ಕಷ5)ಾದ�� 0ಾನು ಮತು� ನನ�

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

ಮಕ�ಳ7 ಆತ8ಹ:ೆ;+ೆ ಶರ.ಾಗುವ ಪ>#?@ ಬರಬಹುದು ಇದ,ೆ� ,ಾರಣ�ಾದ ನನ� %ಾವನ ತಮ80ಾದ ,ಾಡ;%ಾಡ Bೋಮಯ;, ಮತು� ಮಧು ಮತು� ಮನು, ತಹCೕDಾEF ಕGೇ>ಯ ಎಂ.#. ಕಂಪI;ಟF ಆಪ�ೇಟF �ಾಗೂ Kವೃ@ ಾದ ಆF.ಐ �ಾಗೂ CNೕಮಂಗಲ 0ಾಡ ಕOೇ>ಯ +ಾNಮDೆ,ಾ�P,ಾ>�ಾದ !ೇವಯ;, +ಾNಮ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಶಂಕರ0ಾರಯಣ �ಾಗೂ ಆF.ಐ. Cವಪ� ಮತು� ಇದ0ೆಲ� %ಾQ#ದ ಆಡ�ತ ಪ-ದ ಪNRಾ� 0ಾಯಕರುಗಳ7 �ೊ.ೆ+ಾರ�ಾ2ರು:ಾ � ೆ .

¶67

,ೊ0ೆಯ!ಾ2 ನನ+ೆ 0ಾ;ಯ ,ೊQ# ಬದುಕಲು ಅವ,ಾಶ %ಾQ,ೊಡ�ೇ,ಾ2 vÀªÀÄä°è TಾNUV#,ೊಳ7W:ೆ�ೕ0ೆ"

¶68

This Court also deems it fit to extract the article

¶69

published in Shakthi Newspaper, Madikeri Edition. The relevant portion is extracted which reads as under:

¶70

"........PÁqÀåªÀiÁqÀ «zsÀªÁ ªÀÄ»¼É PÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀiÁ J£ï. JA§ªÀgÀ ¥Ëw ¥ÀwAiÀÄ eÁUÀ PÀ§½¸À®Ä PÁqÀåªÀiÁqÀ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÉÆ§â £ÀPÀ° ¸À» ªÀiÁr ªÀAa¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wÃªÀæ ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ²gÀ¸ÉÛÃzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀjAzÀ ªÀÄ»¼ÉUÁzÀ ªÀAZÀ£É ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀiÁ DvÀäºÀvÉåUÉ «¥sÀ® AiÀÄvÀß £ÀqÉ¹zÀÄÝ E§âgÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ fÃªÀ£À ¸ÁV¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À®Ä UÁæªÀÄ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è MvÁÛ¬Ä¹zÀ WÀl£É £ÀqÉ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw G¥ÁzsÀåPÉë ºÉZï.J.VÃvÁ, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ ¸ÀÄ½îªÀiÁqÀ ¢Ã¥ÀPï, ªÉÆtÚ¥Àà, PÉ.J£ï.£ÁZÀ¥Àà, ¦.JA.¨ÉÆ½î, ¦.JA.PÁªÉÃj, ¦.¹.ZÉÆÃªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²¯Áà J¸ï.J., UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÁzÀ ºÉZï.J.£ÁtªÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀªÀgÀÄ G¥À¹ÜvÀjzÀÝgÀÄ."

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

This Court further considers it appropriate to extract the proceedings recorded by the Grama Panchayat pursuant to the enquiry conducted on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1. Upon due consideration, the Grama Panchayat resolved that the said complaint was found to be frivolous and accordingly, the matter was closed. The endorsement issued by the Grama Panchayat, forming part of the record, has a direct bearing on the present case and is therefore reproduced below:

¶74

" ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/11/2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆªÁð£Àß, 11 WÀAmÉUÉ, £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw. PÉ.J£ï.PÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 3 ¸À¨sÉUÉ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀ C£ÀÄ¥À¹ÜyAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄUÉ zÉÆgÉzÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÉÆÃvÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÀÄ¼À.£ÀA. 4 gÀ°è£À ¸À.£ÀA. 85, 74/3, 74/4, 86/3 gÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è G¥À¹ÜvÀjzÀÝ ²æÃ. ZÉ¥ÀÄàªÉÆgÀ ¸ÉÆÃªÀÄAiÀÄå, CfÓgÀÄªÉÃgÀ vÀªÀÄäAiÀÄå, gÁ¥ÀåªÀiÁqÀ, ªÀÄ£ÀÄ, PÉ.© C¥ÀàAiÀiÁå CªÀgÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ºÉÃ½PÉUÀ½UÀÆ, ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁUÉ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ. ±À.J¸À ªÀÄzsÀÄ, ZÉ¥ÀÄàªÉÆgÀ ¸ÉÆÃªÀÄAiÀÄå, CfÓgÀÄªÉÃgÀ vÀªÀÄäAiÀÄå, PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀÄ£ÀÄ. PÉ.©.C¥ÀàtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁ¥ÀàªÀiÁqÀ ¸ÉÆÃªÀÄAiÀÄå ºÁUÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄRzÀ°è ZÀZÉð ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV PÉ.J¸ï. PÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ UÀÄgÀÄw£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÁzÀ £ÀPÀ° ¸À» DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ®Ä£ÉÆÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀÄzsÀÄ ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢. "

¶75

On examining the extracted portions of the complaint and the related materials, what emerges for

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

consideration is whether there exists a prima facie case warranting continuation of proceedings against the petitioners. In the private complaint, the respondent/complainant specifically alleges that petitioner No.2, the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), a public servant entrusted with official responsibilities, placed the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 before the Grama Panchayat. It is further alleged that based on the false representation made by petitioner No.1, the same was read aloud by accused No.2 during the Gram Sabha proceedings, and subsequently, accused Nos.4 and 5 published the contents of said proceedings in the Shakti daily newspaper. The respondent/complainant claims that as a result of this publication, the issue was widely circulated among his relatives, acquaintances, and members of the community, leading to inquiries from several individuals seeking clarification about the authenticity of the complaint filed against him.

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Upon reading the extracted portions and

¶83

assessing the available material, this Court is of the considered view that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. The nature of the allegations, taken at face value, discloses the commission

¶84

of a cognizable offence. Hence, this is not a case warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Whether the actions of petitioner No.1 fall within any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC is a question of fact that requires adjudication during trial. Likewise, the issue of whether accused Nos.3 and 4 namely, the Reporter and Editor of

¶85

the newspaper acted in good faith or whether their conduct attracts the protection of any statutory exception is also a matter that must be determined in the course of trial proceedings.

¶86

In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the

¶87

opinion that the proceedings pending in C.C.No.722/2018 cannot be quashed at this stage. The material placed on

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:29662 CRL.P No. 9968 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

record, including the contents extracted herein, prima facie indicate that the allegations require judicial scrutiny by the trial Court. The case raises several factual disputes which cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section

¶92

482 Cr.P.C., and thus, a full-fledged trial is warranted.

¶93

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the name of the complainant does not appear in the published article has been duly considered. However, this Court finds that the article is directly connected to the complaint filed by petitioner No.1, which does contain specific references to the respondent/complainant by name. It is also alleged that

¶94

the contents of the complaint were publicly read out during the Gram Sabha. Therefore, whether the omission of the complainant’s name in the published article itself constitutes a valid defence, or whether the overall publication still attracts the ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC, are issues that can only be resolved upon detailed examination of evidence at trial.

¶95