1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1625/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI G.K.VENKATA SHIVA REDDY,
S/O G.V.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
EX-MLA OF SRINIVASAPURA,
RESIDENT OF UPAARAPALLI VILLAGE,
RAYALPADU HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR-563 138. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
SRI K.R.RAMESH KUMAR,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
MLA, FORMER SPEAKER OF KARNATAKA
STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND
FORMER MINISTER,
MLA OF SRINIVASAPURA,
RESIDENT OF ADDAGAL VILLAGE,
ADDAGAL POST, RAYALPAD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR-563 138. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN P.C.R.NO.04/2020 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, SRINIVASAPURA FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 388, 499, 500,
501 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.01.2020, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in P.C.R.No.4/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 499, 500, 501 and 506 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein had filed a private complaint, which is numbered as P.C.R.No.4/2020 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivasapura under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. making the allegation against the petitioner that on 20.12.2019 he had addressed the media at Vidhana Soudha by leveling score of false and baseless allegations against the respondent particularly done in the backdrop of momentum where the respondent was being considered to the seat of opposition leader. The petitioner in his speech made the allegation that the respondent has committed 3 encroachment of forest land and Government land when he was the Health Minister and caused loss of Rs.533.22 Crores which reveals from the CAG report. The said statement appeared in certain sections of media and in newspaper such as Kannada Prabaha and Vijay Karnataka. In view of the publication in the media and the statements made by the petitioner, have caused serious injury to the reputation, dignity and standing of the respondent. The learned Magistrate having received the complaint, proceeded to record the sworn statement of the witnesses after taking the cognizance. Thereafter, considering the material on record, issued the process against the petitioner herein. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.
3. The first count of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court which has taken the cognizance is not having the jurisdiction to take the cognizance. The other contention of the petitioner is that without looking into the ingredients of Section 388 of IPC, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the said offence also. It is contended that there is no allegation of extortion in the complaint and in the absence of pleading regarding extortion, the learned 4 Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 388 of IPC. The other contention is that the statements made is not intending to harm and defame the respondent herein. Without looking into the material on record, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking the cognizance relying upon the statements of other two witnesses, namely Sri Ayyappa and Sri Syed Azaz Pasha and they are not the eye-witnesses to the press statement.
4. The other contention is that the learned Magistrate has not taken any cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC and when the cognizance was not taken for Section 499 of IPC, the question of taking the cognizance in respect of Section 500 of IPC does not arise. The learned counsel vehemently contend that while taking the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 501 of IPC, the complainant has not made either the editor or the reporter of the newspaper as party to the complaint. When Section 501 of IPC will not attract to the petitioner, the question of taking cognizance for the said offence does not arise. 5
5. The learned counsel vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, wherein the petitioner has not committed the offence of criminal intimidation in view of the press statement. Under the press statement, the petitioner requested the Government of Karnataka to initiate an enquiry against the respondent and the same will not amount to any criminal intimidation. The learned counsel would contend that learned Magistrate should not have taken the cognizance and the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court is very clear that vindication to majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the person, then only process would be issued. The learned counsel would contend that taking of the cognizance for the offences alleged against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process and it requires interference of this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BALRAJ KHANNA v. MOTI RAM reported in LAWS(SC) 1971 4 42. The learned 6 counsel referring this judgment would submit that the Apex Court in this judgment has held that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 of IPC. It will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are all to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that the press meet made by the petitioner herein does not attract the provision of defamation and only request was made to the Government to hold an enquiry and find out the truth.
7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LAXMI RAJ SHETTY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in LAWS (SC) 1988 4 27. The learned counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely 7 hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant No.2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence.
8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S. BANGARAPPA v. GANESH NARAYAN HEGADE reported in LAWS(KAR) 1992 6 14. Referring this judgment, the learned counsel would submit that when the ingredients of an act of defaming a person not made out, it is incorrect to connect the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. If the courts below had made a judicious and dispassionate approach to some of the portions of the statements and other relevant material including admissibility or otherwise of such evidence, the finding would 8 have been that no grounds exist in the complaint to suggest that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, would vehemently contend that the very same Court only took up the matter, i.e., Additional Judge. The learned counsel would contend that though the incident of press meet was at Bengaluru, it has got effect throughout the State and particularly in the constituency in which the complainant/respondent herein represents. The Court has to look into the impact on account of the said statement made in the press meet, which has been telecasted. The petitioner is also residing within the jurisdiction of the Court and the imputations made in the press meet causes harm to the complainant, who is residing in the same place and the Court which had taken the cognizance had the jurisdiction.
10. The learned counsel would submit that the witnesses, who have given the sworn statement should have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. From the sworn statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the second incident was also taken 9 place at Srinivasapura and the petitioner had called the press meet at local place and made the similar allegations in the press meet. The complainant not only examined himself, but he also examined two witnesses, who have viewed the press meet. The Trial Judge considering the material available on record after taking the cognizance, recorded the sworn statement and passed the impugned order. Hence, there cannot be any quashing of the order invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance vide order dated 04.02.2020. First this Court would like to refer to the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and recorded the statement of the complainant as P.W.1. The complainant got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 4. Two witnesses are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Magistrate while taking the cognizance, perused the contents of the complaint, sworn statements, documents produced along with the complaint and the statement of the witnesses. The learned Magistrate has 10 formed an opinion that there are no reasons to reject the sworn statement of the complainant, statement of the witnesses and the documents. On record there are sufficient materials which are made out a prima facie case to register the case against the accused.
12. Having perused the order, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 500, 501 and 506 of IPC. This Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. On perusal of the private complaint, in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the allegations are made with regard to the reputation of the complainant. On perusal of paragraph No.7, it is categorically stated with regard to the incident dated 20.12.2019 the petitioner addressing the media at Vidhana Soudha making the allegation against the respondent herein. The allegation is that the petitioner herein has made speech that the respondent herein has committed encroachment of forest land and Government land and he is a wealthy politician in the State. In paragraph No.8 referred with regard to CAG report talks of Rs.535.22 Crores illegality when the respondent was the Health Minister; 120 acres of revenue and forest land is 11 kept in illegal captive of the respondent. In paragraph No.9 of the complaint specific allegation is made that the petitioner is having the habit of splattering unfounded remarks and slanderous statements in order to flare it up for larger public attention with a definite intention to ensure and achieve measurable level of damage to the respondent. In paragraph No.10, it is mentioned that certain sections of media entities being responsible part of 4th pillar of democracy have been doing everything that they are specifically prohibited from. The news has been published in the media, as a result, the dignity of the respondent including his relatives and confidants created mental agony not only to the complainant but also to his family members. The baseless allegations were made widely by the media and hence he has approached the Court.
13. Having perused the complaint, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing is whispered in the complaint in order to invoke Sections 388 and 506 of IPC. There is no any averment in the complaint that he had caused intimidation and on perusing the entire complaint, reckless allegation is made against the respondent herein that 12 he had acquired the forest land and also he is a wealthy politician in the State and misused the office when he was a Health Minister. The same constitutes an offence under Section 500 of IPC and also there is an averment with regard to invoking of the offence under Section 501 of IPC. But none of the averments made in the complaint attracts the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 388 and 506 of IPC. The learned Magistrate while taking the cognizance for all the offences, though referred the contents of the complaint and sworn statement and witnesses statement, not applied his mind as to whether a case is made out to issue process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 388 and 506 of IPC. A general opinion was formed that there are sufficient material and no reference is made with regard to each of the offences. This Court does not find the ingredients of Sections 388 and 506 of IPC and in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint, there cannot be any order of issuing the process for the offences punishable under Sections 388 and 506 of IPC.
13
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Taking of the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 388 and 506 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
(iii) Taking of the cognizance for the other offences is unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD