Sri K N Shantha Kumar Vs Sri Mallikarjunjappa

SRI. K.N. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. K.A. NETTAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS EDITOR PRAJAVANI KANNADA NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL OFFICE NO.515, 516/2, SHRAMAJEEVI COMPLEX P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 02 PRESENTLY WORKING AT #75, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD POST BOX NO.5331 BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. S SHIVARAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE SRI T.S. SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRINTER & PUBLISHER PRAJAVANI KANNADA NEWSPAPER RAJ HANS PVT LTD., PLOT NO.13 KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA LOKIKERE ROAD DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI: S S NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT: SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI MALLIKARJUNJAPPA S/O MUSTARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ADVOCATE

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT GUMMANARU VILLAGE GUDHAL POST, ANAGODU HOBLI DAVANAGERE - 577 512.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI: G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE (AB))

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED THEREIN IN C.C.NO.2080/2012 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE I-JMFC, DAVANAGERE TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 499, 500, 501, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND TO QUASH THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO.2080/2012 PENDING ON THE COURT I - JMFC, DAVANGERE.

¶23

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.2080 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Davangere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 , 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that, a private complaint in PCR No.67 of 2012 was filed by the respondent - complainant against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offences

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 504 read with Section 34 of

¶31

IPC. It is contended in the private complaint that the complainant is an advocate enrolled with Karnataka State Bar Council and practicing at Davangere. He reliably learnt that on 02.03.2012 there was an unfortunate incident that has occurred in City Civil Court, Bengaluru and there was a clash between the media person and others. The media report carried the impression that the advocates are goondas, rowdies etc., The petitioners suspected that both print and electronic media have reported/telecasted the incident with one sided story. Accused No.1 is the editor, accused No.2 is the printer and publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily newspaper, which is having wide circulation. On 03.03.2012, in the said newspaper, the accused persons have published the report under the heading "ªÀQÃ®gÀ ¥ÀÄAqÁnPÉ E°è£À ¹n ¹«�ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ�ÉÃdÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ�É PÀ®Äè vÀÆgÁl £ÀqÉ¹ UÀÆAqÁVj ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¹zÀÄÝ"

¶32

The respondent - complainant has stated that he started receiving phone calls from his friends regarding this report and his clients started saying that they started losing

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

confidence in the advocates. General public started suspecting

¶37

the credibility of the respondent and thereby he is defamed. The petitioners have committed the offences as stated above and accordingly, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance and to initiate legal action.

¶38

The Trial Court took cognizance and registered CC No.2080 of 2012 and summoned the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶39

Heard Sri S S Naganand, learned senior advocate for Smt Sumana Naganand, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri G Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent is absent. No representation. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, he has not addressed the arguments. Hence, his arguments is taken as 'NIL'. Perused the materials on record.

¶40

Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that none of the ingredients of any of the provisions under IPC could be invoked, even if the contention taken by the petitioners in the private complaint is to be accepted. Even according to the respondent, the incident had occurred at Bengaluru within the City Civil Court precincts. The allegations

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

made in the newspaper is referring to a small group of advocates and media personnel who are responsible for the incident. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be attributable to the entire advocate fraternity in general.

¶45

Learned senior advocate has produced AnnexureG, the order dated 26.08.2013 passed in Criminal Petition No.10994 of 2012, where the petitioners therein have sought for quashing the criminal proceedings in a similar situation which was also pertaining to the incident that had occurred at City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the contention taken by the parties formed an opinion that the defamation can be committed in respect of a class of persons or a group of persons, when there is no allegation in the complaint which can indicate that there was any imputation concerning the complainant only on the basis of general statements. No offence as alleged could be made out. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the similar criminal proceedings was quashed.

¶46

Learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the

¶47

order dated 24.04.2019 passed in Criminal Petition No.100205

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

of 2019 with connected matters, which are also pertaining to

¶52

the incident that had occurred at City Civil Court and similar publication published in various newspaper. The co-ordinate Bench analyzed the factual aspects of the matter and opined that nowhere in the complaint it is alleged that there was any specific averments in any of the reports concerning the complainant to attract Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The coordinate Bench observed that the incident had occurred at Bengaluru concerning some advocates who are the members of Advocates Association, Bengaluru and any allegations made against them cannot be made applicable to the advocates in the entire State or in the rest of the Country. Therefore, all the criminal petitions were allowed and the criminal proceedings were quashed. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶53

In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶54

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶59

REASONS

¶60

In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that he learnt about the incident that had occurred at Bengaluru while he was an advocate practicing at Davangere. He placed reliance on the publication in Prajavani newspaper. The report refers to the incident that had occurred in Bengaluru about the highhanded acts of few of the advocates at Bengaluru. There is absolutely no explanation in the complaint as to how the complainant is affected by the news report pertaining to a group of advocates belonging to Bar Association, Bengaluru.

¶61

To attract Section 499 of IPC, there must be a specific imputation that will harm the reputation of a person who can sue the other for defamation. When admittedly there is no imputation made against the complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any of the offences as alleged. The co-ordinate Benches of this Court already quashed similar criminal proceedings, which were initiated at various

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1356 CRL.P No. 1218 of 2019

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

parts of the State. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present criminal proceedings is also liable to be quashed as the same was registered in abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The criminal proceedings pending in CC No.2080 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Davangere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 , 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed against the present petitioners.

¶68

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶69

*bgn/CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Sri K N Shantha Kumar v. Sri Mallikarjunjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K N Shantha Kumar v. Sri Mallikarjunjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sampath Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Bindamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chandrappa K Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri H L Ramesh Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Preetham Vs the State of Karnataka