Criminal Petition No. 6736 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on : 12.02.2025 Pronounced on : 07.03.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6736 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA S J AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.190/A, 1ST A CROSS, SRIVIDYANAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI LAYOUT BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 083. (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND: MS. SOWMYA REDDY D/O SRI RAMALINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.35TH CROSS 18TH MAIN ROAD 4TH T BLOCK (EAST) JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041. (BY SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.37087/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 499 AND 500 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.19857/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.51. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner/accused No.51 is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.37087 of 2021 pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Facts
arising out of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.
Legal Reasoning
the petitioner is at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri Sridhar Prabhu representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complaint does not indicate any of the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC to be present in the case at hand against the petitioner, in particular. The allegation is that the petitioner had expressed his views on the controversy related to an event in which the complainant took part. The complaint alleges that the petitioner has made the alleged video with an intention to spread false stories by picking on concocted issues and spreading malicious rumors. It is his further submission that there is no allegation against the petitioner, in particular, that would pin down for a trial before the concerned Court. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, on merits of the 5 matter, the learned counsel would take this Court through the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons to contend that there is no application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate to do so. In all, he would seek quashment of the entire proceedings. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent would vehemently contend that ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are completely met in the case at hand for it to become an offence under Section 500 of the IPC. The language deployed by the petitioner in the tweets or in the other social media platforms would clearly defame or bring down the reputation of the respondent. She would, therefore, contend that this Court should not interfere at this stage, as it is a matter of trial. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance need not bear much application of mind that it would look like a rowing enquiry held at the time of issuance of process. The order does bear application of mind and would not require any interference. She seeks dismissal of the petition. 6 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The respondent/complainant invokes the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., against 53 people. Accused No.51 is the present petitioner. Insofar as accused No.51 is concerned, all that the complaint narrates is as follows: “21. It is submitted that accused No.51 has on 27th November, 2020 have addressed the public at large in virtual social media by way of Facebook with series of questions without approaching the complainant solely with an intent to circulate false stories about her by picking on concocted issues and spreading malicious rumours. The said post dated 27-11- https://www.facebook.com/ 2020 watch/?v=428105401692596) with the caption which reads as under: published (Link: is ¸ËªÀÄågÉrØ GvÀÛj¸ÀzÉ G½zÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼ÀÄ! | gÁzsÁPÀȵÀÚ ºÉƼÁî ¸ËªÀÄågÉrØ GvÀÛj¸ÀzÉ G½zÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼ÀÄ! | gÁzsÁPÀȵÀÚ ºÉƼÀî The print outs of the post is reflected in the link is produced herewith as Document No.45. The video posted by the accused No.48 is produced along with other Videos in Document No.1 and transcripts of the same is produced along with Document No.2.” What is found against the petitioner is at paragraph-21 of the complaint. Paragraph-21 indicates that on 27-11-2020 the 7 petitioner had addressed the public at large in virtual social media through Facebook with series of questions without approaching the complainant with an intent to circulate false stories about her by spreading malicious rumors. Whilst against others there are several pointed references, but not against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and directs registration of the complaint as a private complaint and posts the matter for recording of statement of the complainant on 24-12-2021. The learned Magistrate registers the criminal case and issues process to the accused including the petitioner. The order reads as follows: “O R D E R Office to register Criminal case against the accused No.01 to 53 for the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C. punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. in Register No. III and issue summons to the accused No.01 to 53, if sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 204 of Cr.P.C., are complied. Returnable by:21-01-2022. Sd/- (PREETH.J) XLII ADDL.C.M.M.” A detailed order is passed separately. In the detailed order what is found against the petitioner is at paragraph-16. It reads as follows: 8 “16. The accused No.51 on 27-11-2020 has addressed the public at large in virtual social media by way of Facebook with series of questions without approaching the complainant with intent to circulate false stories about her by picking on concocted issue and spreading malicious rumours. “¸ËªÀÄågÉrØ GvÀÛj¸ÀzÉ G½zÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁzsÁPÀȵÀÚ ºÉƼÀî ¸ËªÀÄågÉrØ GvÀÛj¸ÀzÉ G½zÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁzsÁPÀȵÀÚ ºÉƼÀî””. It is verbatim same of what is found in the complaint quoted supra. Therefore, it is ununderstandable on what basis did the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence against this petitioner/accused No.51 for the offences under Section 499 and 500 of the IPC. 8. Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC read as follows: “499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. 9 Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Illustrations (a) A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. to Z, (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. First Exception—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception—Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person 10 touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration respecting Z's It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. conduct Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations (a) A says—“I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest.” A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further. (b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the 11 opinion which he expresses of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Illustrations (a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public. (b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public. (c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public. (d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further. (e) But if A says—“I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine.” A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the 12 conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier—are within this exception. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised per-son.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father—A is within this exception. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations (a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. 13 (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. 500. Punishment for defamation.—Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 499 mandates that statements made by any person either spoken or intended to be read or by signs with an intention to harm or believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said to defame a particular person. As observed hereinabove, against the petitioner what is alleged is as quoted hereinabove. The complainant at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint narrates that she was present in the event. Everything has happened in her presence. For better understanding paragraphs 4 and 5 are reproduced hereunder: “4. It is submitted that members of Om Kannada Mariyammana Karunaada Sangha (Regd.), 8th Block, Bangalore requested and invited the complainant to be the Chief Guest for the 26th year celebration of 65th Kannada Rajyothsava to be held on 22-11-2020. The complainant agreed to attend the function. 14 The programme was postponed to 23rd November 2020 and the complainant attended the program and addressed the occasion. 5. It is submitted that the accused persons have with an intention to tarnish the image of the complainant by choosing the slogan mentioned in the banner put up by the organizers for the 26th year celebration of 65th Kannada Rajyothsava organized by the said Sangha which reads as under: “¨Áj¸ÀÄ PÀ£ÀßqÀ rArªÀĪÀ eÉÊ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀÈzÀAiÀÄ AiÉÄøÀÄ” have made perse defamatory statement by way of public display of hoardings, flex and slogans against the complainant herein by calling her as Anti-Hindu, Anti-Kannadiga and by stating that she encourages religious conversions to appease vote bank.” Section 499 of the IPC has certain exceptions. The 9th exception to Section 499 deals with imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his and others interest. It would not amount to defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided the imputation is protection of the interest of the person making or for public good. 9. The Apex Court explains the distinctions between imputations which could be defamatory and which would be of public good. The Apex Court in the case of JOHN THOMAS v. DR. K. JAGADEESAN1, has held as follows: 1 (2001) 6 SCC 30 15 “…. …. …. 10. Shri Sivasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the imputations contained in the publication complained of are not per se defamatory. After reading the imputations we have no doubt that they are prima facie libellous. The only effect of an imputation being per se defamatory is that it would relieve the complainant of the burden to establish that the publication of such imputations has lowered him in the estimation of the right-thinking members of the public. However, even if the imputation is not per se defamatory, that by itself would not go to the advantage of the publisher, for, the complaining person can establish on evidence that the publication has in fact amounted to defamation even in spite of the apparent deficiency. So the appellant cannot contend, at this stage, that he is entitled to discharge on the ground that the imputations in the extracted publication were not per se defamatory.” The Apex Court was interpreting the ninth exception on the score that the imputations were not per se defamatory. Unless it is shown as defamatory lowering the image of the complainant in the minds of right-thinking members of public, it would not amount to defamation. In the light of what is afore-quoted, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, as there is nothing in the statements allegedly made by the petitioner that can become defamatory as obtaining under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. 16 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
Arguments
2. Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt Sruti Changanti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant. 3 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The issue in the lis relates to the celebration of Kannada Rajyothsava on 22-11-2020 but postponed to 23-11-2020. The allegation is that the petitioner along with others was making defamatory statement which would dent the reputation of the complainant/respondent. The petitioner and the respondent were/are public representatives. It is the case of the complainant that on 27-11-2020 she becomes aware of the information that was already broadcasted in various channels of electronic media which was aired by way of Samvada which carried the title questions unanswered by the complainant. The video related to complainant’s participation in the event that carried the banner ‘¨Áj¸ÀÄ PÀ£ÀßqÀ rArªÀĪÀ eÉÊ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀÈzÀAiÀÄ AiÉÄøÀÄ’ which spurred controversy for the title being the distorted version of the original lines from what was written by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu. This video was uploaded on to all social media platforms. As observed hereinabove, the event was on 23- 11-2020. After close to a year on 06-08-2021 the respondent registers the private complaint in P.C.R.No.61 of 2021 before the learned Magistrate alleging that the statements or what was aired 4 in electronic media or what was uploaded to social media would amount to defamation. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and issues summons to all the accused after recording a sworn statement of the complainant and two other witnesses. The summons is served upon the petitioner in the year 2023. Therefore,
Decision
O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.37087 of 2021 pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of PCR No.19857 of 2021 stand quashed qua the petitioner. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused in the PCR. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT:MJ