Criminal Petition No. 1825 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2022 BETWEEN: N.K. RANGASWAMY S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO. 1072, 6TH MAIN, 20TH CROSS, 7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 102. (BY SMT. LONITA MATHIAS, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER DR. K. MOHAN APPAJI S/O LATE K.N. APPAJI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AMRUTHA ENT CARE, RAJA SEAT ROAD, MADIKERI 571 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VACHAN G.A., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERE IN P.C.NO.19/2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.499 AND 500 OF IPC 1860 DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE IN P.C.NO.19/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED PERSON INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in P.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 499 of 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for
Legal Reasoning
short, 'the IPC') and directing registration of FIR and also to quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.1323 of 2021 pending before the Trial Court for the above said offences. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent has filed the private complaint in P.C.No.19 of 2018 before the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. It is alleged that accused No.1 in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 private complaint is also the accused in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri initiated under the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the petitioner herein had vast wealth, which is disproportionate to his known source of income. It is stated that the respondent herein is one of the witnesses in the said case. He alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 is threatening him not to give evidence. The same was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Prosecutor by filing a memo in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016. The petitioner-accused No.1 has filed the statement of objections to the memo dated 07.04.2017 filed by the Special Public Prosecutor. 3. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has made defamatory statement in the statement of objections filed in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016 and therefore, the respondent filed the private complaint in P.C.No.19 of 2018. The learned Magistrate took - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 cognizance of the offences and C.C.No.1323 of 2021 came to be registered. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
Legal Reasoning
4. Heard Smt.Lenita Mathias, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vachan.G.K., learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. The materials on record disclose that the petitioner is the accused in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016. It is alleged that he being the public servant was having vast - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and has committed the offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent/ complainant is one of the witness in the said case. It is stated that the respondent has complained to Lokayukta Police that he is receiving calls from the petitioner threatening him not to give evidence in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016. This fact was informed to the learned Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer who in turn filed a memo dated 07.04.2017 before the Special Court, which reads as under: "The prosecution begs to bring into the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court, the letter sent by the Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Kodagu District". 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never came across the contents of the letter said to have been written by the respondent addressed to the Inspector of Police, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 Karnataka Lokayukta. He further states that the statement of objections filed by the petitioner is only in response to the memo dated 07.04.2017 referred to above. Even though the memo contains only one sentence, the statement of objections filed by the petitioner runs into four pages. 8. In the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, he has stated that the respondent is a dishonest, venomous, vicious person and is known for wrong reasons in the family. He was instrumental in causing Lokayukta prosecution against his eldest brother, Shri K.A.Uthappa. He was also instrumental in fastening the case in Spl.C.C.No.61 of 2016 against the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent is wrecking vengeance with false accusations. It is also alleged that the respondent has harassed his own brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law and extracted huge amount. It is alleged that even though the respondent joined the services with M/s.ESI Hospital, Bengaluru during 1989, he took leave in the year 1996, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 went to Saudi Arabia, worked in Government Hospital for two years and three months, without informing the Government. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.129 of 2004. 9. It is also alleged in the statement of objections that during 2013, the respondent had gone astray. He filed the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2013 and also instigated Lokayukta to conduct a raid on the petitioner. He has written a letter to the Additional Director General of Police, which resulted in suspension of the petitioner. Now, the allegations are made by the respondent only to see that the bail granted in favour of the petitioner is cancelled. It is further alleged that the respondent who is a witness in a criminal case has instigated the Investigating Officer, fabricated the records with malice and ulterior motive pursuant to the dishonest designing to corruptly and falsely make out a case against the accused. It is suggested that the petitioner being the accused in the said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 case is having other documents to expose the sinister motive of the respondent. 10. On going through the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, it is clear that serious allegations are made against the respondent, which are prima-facie defamatory in nature. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another1 in support of her contention that no prima-facie case to constitute the offence under Section 500 of IPC is made out and further, the case in hand falls within the 8th and 9th Exception under Section 499 of IPC and therefore, the criminal proceedings is to be quashed. She also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aroon Purie Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others2 in support of her contention that if prima-facie the allegations of complaint falls within any of the 1 1999 SCC 3134 2 SLP (Crl) No.005118/2021 DD 31.10.2022 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 Exceptions under Section 499 of IPC, the same can be taken into consideration to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. She also contended that the benefit of such Exceptions to Section 499 of IPC be extended to the petitioner by quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shri M Nagesh Vs. Shri Harishchandra K Pai3 in support of her contention that the allegations made in the statement of objections was never intended to tarnish the image of the petitioner and there was no publication of any of the alleged imputation, and under such circumstances, no offence whatsoever is made. 13. The proposition of law laid down in those decisions are very well settled. The same are to be applied to the facts of the present case. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 3 Crl.P.No.7405 of 2016 DD 25.04.2019 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 the petitioner was never communicated about contents of the complaint given by the respondent to the Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. The petitioner is not aware of any of the allegations made by the respondent in the said complaint. The statement of objections was filed to the memo that was filed by the learned Prosecutor intimating the Court about the complaint received by the respondent and submitted through the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta. As I have already noted, even though the memo contains only one sentence and even though the complaint is said to have been filed by the respondent, it was not communicated to the petitioner but the statement of objections to the memo runs into several pages making all sorts of allegations against the respondent. 14. The respondent in the private complaint in P.C.No.19 of 2018 stated that he is a Doctor by profession having great respect and repute in the Society. He is serving as the President of the Indian Medical Association, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 Kodagu District and the President of the Rotary Club of Madikeri and also President of Kodagu Badminton Association, and working as Professor in KVG Medical College at Sulliya, visiting Doctor to Vivus Hospital, Ashwini Hospital and he has organized free ENT camps in Ashwini Hospital since several years. He was born and brought up in Kodagu District and he has family members and friends as well as other known person in the District of Kodagu as well as in the State of Karnataka. 15. When admittedly, the statement of objections raising serious allegations against the respondent is filed in the open Court, it amounts to publication and it was definitely not for private circulation. Under such circumstances, there are prima-facie materials to constitute the offence in question. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for 8th and 9th Exception under Section 499 of IPC, the petitioner can take such defence before the Trial Court, but the same cannot be a ground at - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2548 CRL.P No. 1825 of 2022 this stage to quash the criminal proceedings. Nor it is a ground to conduct an enquiry by this Court, at this stage, to consider as to whether the respondent is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint Since there are prima-facie materials to constitute the offences as alleged in the complaint, the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer sought for. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. The observations made above are only for the purpose of disposal of the petition and the same would not influence the Trial Court in deciding the matter on merits. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SNN