Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Ias vs Smt. Roopa Divakar Moudgil

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Ias vs Smt. Roopa Divakar Moudgil on 21 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 21.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2025 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. ROHINI SINDHURI, IAS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O. SRI G.SUDHIR REDDY,
RESIDENT OF "ARAVINDAM",
PLOT NO.30, CENTRY ARTIZEN,
NITTE MEENAKSHI COLLEGE ROAD,
BSF CAMPUS, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. ROOPA DIVAKAR MOUDGIL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O SRI MUNISH MOUDGIL,
RESIDENT OF NO.60,
RICHMOND ROAD,
NEAR HOSMAT HOSPITAL,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
2

EMAIL:[email protected]
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR ORDER
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE VII
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY IN PCR
NO.15068/2024, AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, WHO IS
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF AN
OFFENCE WHICH IS MADE PENAL UNDER SECTION 500 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; AND
(B) PASS AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER
QUASHING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
IN PCR NO.15068/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALOR CITY, AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE
ALLEGED COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE WHICH IS MADE PENAL
UNDER SECTION 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M; (C) PASS AN APPROPRIATE WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE RECORDING OF ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.15068/2024 ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS
3

ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE WHICH
IS MADE PENAL UNDER SECTION 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

prayer:

(a) "pass an appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside
the order dated 13-01-2025 passed by the VII Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore City, in
P.C.R.No.15068 of 2024, against the petitioner herein,
who is arraigned as accused for the alleged commission of
an offence which is made penal under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code, which is produced as Annexure-A.

AND

(b) pass an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the
complaint filed by the respondent herein in PCR No.15068
of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bangalore City, against the petitioner herein
who is arraigned as accused for the alleged commission of
an offence which is made penal under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code, which is produced as Annexure-M;

AND
4

(c) pass an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the
recording of all further proceedings in PCR No.15068 of
2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bangalore City, against the petitioner herein
who is arraigned as accused for the alleged commission of
an offence which is made penal under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code which is produced as Annexure-A;

AND/OR

(d) Such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper
and necessary, in the interest of justice."

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

2.1. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Administrative

Service belonging to the Karnataka Cadre. Several averments with

regard to encomiums of the petitioner are narrated in the petition

which would not be necessary to be noticed to the issue projected

in the lis. The respondent is an officer of the Indian Police Service.

The petitioner avers in the petition that she comes across a

Facebook post on 18-02-2023 on the Facebook page of the

respondent bearing the name D Roopa Moudgil, in which the

respondent is said to have posted several derogatory remarks

against the petitioner concerning various issues. Chat conversations

are shown as deleted. Alleging that these messages which were

deleted were pictures of the petitioner sent by herself was
5

what was projected on the Facebook page. Further allegation is that

the petitioner had constructed a massive bungalow in Jalahalli, but

had not reported the same in her immovable property returns while

filing periodically by All India Service Officers and so on and so

forth. The petitioner on the said posts, which according to the

averment in the petition were per se defamatory, had to institute a

suit in O.S.No.25288 of 2023 seeking perpetual injunction

restraining the defendants from in any way or in any mode making

false and defamatory statements/allegations. An ad interim order of

injunction was passed by the civil Court in O.S.No.25288 of 2023 at

a later point of time in the said suit.

2.2. The issue is not with regard to the proceedings before

the civil Court. On the score again that it was per se defamatory,

the petitioner files a private complaint invoking the provision for the

offence which is made penal for defamation under the IPC i.e.,

Section 500. In the private complaint, cognizance is taken and

C.C.No.7870 of 2023 is registered. The said order of taking of

cognizance was called in question by the respondent before this

Court in Criminal Petition No.4575 of 2023. The said criminal
6

petition comes to be dismissed. The matter was taken up to the

Apex Court by the respondent. The Apex Court heard the matter,

directed the parties to arrive at a settlement and

contemporaneously directed the respondent to delete all the posts

that were allegedly defamatory, which the respondent is said to

have complied. Later, the respondent is said to have withdrawn the

SLP filed before the Apex Court.

2.3. After the said withdrawal, the impugned complaint comes

to be filed by the respondent on 09-12-2024 in P.C.R.No.15068 of

2024 alleging that the petitioner has also indulged herself in making

derogatory remarks against the respondent by calling her mentally

unsound or ill. The said private complaint is registered post the

BNSS i.e., 01-07-2024. Procedures stipulated under the BNSS are

followed by issuing notice to the petitioner and the petitioner

furnishing her reply, after which cognizance is taken and process is

issued against the present petitioner. Calling in question the entire

proceedings in PCR No.15068 of 2024 the present petition is

preferred.
7

3. The matter appeared before this Court as it is the roster

bench on 08-01-2026. This Court passed the following orders on

different dates:

08-01-2026:

"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri
B.A.Belliappa and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri
Jaysham J.Rao would submit that they have no objection for the
Court to take up the subject matter.

In the light of the said submission, list the matter on
29.01.2026.

Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date
of hearing."

29-01-2026:

"Heard the learned Counsel Sri B.A.Belliappa,
appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior
counsel Sri D R Ravishankar, appearing for the
respondent.

This Court, on 08.01.2026, had passed the following
order:

"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri
B.A.Belliappa and the learned counsel for the respondent
Sri Jaysham J. Rao would submit that they have no
objection for the Court to take up the subject matter.

In the light of the said submission, list the matter
on 29.01.2026.

Interim order granted earlier is extended till the
next date of hearing."

This Court is of the opinion that if the parties could arrive
at a settlement, it would give a quietus to the litigation between
them.
8

Therefore, the respective learned counsel shall seek
instructions with regard to exploration of the possibilities of
settlement. The parties shall be present at 1.30 p.m. on
31.01.2026.

Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date
of hearing.

List this matter on 31.01.2026."

31-01-2026:

"This Court on 29-01-2026 had passed the following
order:

"Heard the learned Counsel Sri B.A.Belliappa,
appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior
counsel Sri D R Ravishankar, appearing for the
respondent.

This Court, on 08.01.2026, had passed the
following order:

"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri
B.A.Belliappa and the learned counsel for the
respondent Sri Jaysham J. Rao would submit that
they have no objection for the Court to take up the
subject matter.

In the light of the said submission, list the
matter on 29.01.2026.

Interim order granted earlier is extended
till the next date of hearing."

This Court is of the opinion that if the parties
could arrive at a settlement, it would give a quietus to
the litigation between them.

Therefore, the respective learned counsel shall
seek instructions with regard to exploration of the
possibilities of settlement. The parties shall be present
at 1.30 p.m. on 31.01.2026.

Interim order granted earlier is extended till the
next date of hearing.
9

List the matter on 31.01.2026."

The parties and their respective counsels on record Sri B
A Belliappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri D R
Ravishankar, learned senior counsel and Sri Jaysham Jayasimha
Rao, learned counsel for the respondent had appeared for an in-
camera proceedings. The parties were further directed to
explore the possibilities of a settlement. They have sought time.

Therefore, list this matter on 04-02-2026 to report
settlement if any, failing which, the matter would be considered
on its merit."

04-02-2026:

"The parties to the lis would submit that they are not
agreeable for terms of settlement. Therefore, the matter would
be heard on its merit as was indicated earlier.

List this matter on 06.02.2026 at 2.30 p.m.

Interim order granted earlier, stands extended till the
next date of hearing."

06-02-2026:

"Learned counsel Sri.Vardhan Reddy, appearing for the
petitioner submits that learned counsel Sri.B.A.Belliappa has
given 'No Objection' and is wanting to engage another counsel.

Therefore, list this matter on 12.02.2026.

Arrangement and argument be made on the said date.

Interim order granted earlier, stands extended till the
next date of hearing."

12-02-2026:

"With the consent of the learned Senior Counsel
Sri.C.V.Nagesh appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior
10

Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the respondent, the
matter is heard.

Reserved.

Interim order granted earlier, stands extended till the
disposal of the petition."

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court was then informed that there was no settlement between

the parties and, therefore, with the consent of parties the matter

was heard and reserved.

4. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITONER:

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would make

three-fold submissions - first submission is, that stories or

articles that the respondent put up were per se defamatory. What
11

the petitioner has said is only a retaliation to those defamatory

statements. Therefore, they would become statements in good

faith, which come within the explanation/exception-9 of Section 499

of the IPC and never become an offence under Section 500; the

second submission is, that the complaint is registered after a

delay of close to two years, that too rendering falsehood insofar as

cause of action is concerned. It is his submission that the cause of

action arose in the year 2023, but the complaint is registered on

09-12-2024 contending that further cause of action had arisen on

12-11-2024; the third submission is, with regard to the order of

taking of cognizance bearing no application of mind. On all these

grounds, the learned senior counsel would submit that the

proceedings before the concerned Court in the impugned P.C.R

must be obliterated, failing which it would become an abuse of the

process of law.

RESPONDENT:

6.1. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending

that if retaliation to defamation is made, it would on the face of it
12

be defamatory. There can be no better illustration of defamation.

The petitioner has also called the respondent that she is of unsound

mind or mentally ill. This is a matter of trial as to what extent and

what was the reason for expression of those statements against the

respondent. At the stage of taking of cognizance this Court should

not interfere with the order so passed.

6.2. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is

no delay in the case at hand. The coordinate Bench dismissed the

petition filed by the petitioner on a particular date, wherein the

respondent had challenged the cognizance taken and registering of

criminal case. This was challenged before the Apex Court. Up to

18-11-2024 the proceedings were before the Apex Court, during

which the Apex Court had directed the parties to settle the issue.

When the settlement talks failed before the Apex Court and the

respondent having withdrawn the SLP before the Apex Court,

immediately thereafter the subject PCR is preferred within 30 days

of the dismissal of SLP. Therefore, there can be no delay in the

case at hand.
13

6.3. Insofar as exception is concerned, the learned senior

counsel would take this Court through the order passed in favour of

the petitioner by the coordinate Bench. This very ground of

exception was projected by the respondent before the coordinate

Bench where she was the petitioner. The coordinate Bench had

clearly rejected the ground of ninth exception that was projected by

the respondent on the score that exception is always a matter of

evidence. The same principle is applicable to the petitioner also. He

would, therefore, submit that all these matters are to be thrashed

out in a full-blown trial, as it is defamation versus defamation.

Insofar as the order of taking cognizance is concerned, the learned

senior counsel would submit that it is a very lengthy order which

considered all the aspects and at the stage of taking cognizance the

concerned Court need not indulge in a roving enquiry or an

expedition towards discovery of truth. It is only a matter of trial. He

would thus seek dismissal of the petition.

7. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the respondent have relied on certain judgments which would bear

consideration in the course of the order qua their relevance.
14

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused

the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the following issues

arise for my consideration:

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

(i) Whether the complaint and the resultant
proceedings get vitiated on the ground of delay?

(ii) Whether Exception 9 to Section 499 of the IPC
can protect the petitioner from further trial in the
impugned proceedings?

(iii) Whether the order of taking of cognizance suffers
from non-application of mind?

CONSIDERATION:

ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the complaint and the resultant proceedings

get vitiated on the ground of delay?
15

9. The dates and link in the chain of events though are a

matter of record, they would require a skeletal reiteration. On two

dates i.e., on 18-02-2023 and 19-02-2023 it is said that the

respondent has posted derogatory or defamatory statements/

stories on her Facebook page. A suit is filed by the petitioner in

O.S.No.25288 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction in which

temporary injunction is granted against the respondent.

Contemporaneously, the petitioner also invokes Section 200 of the

Cr.P.C., registers a private complaint for offences punishable under

Section 500 of the IPC. On 24-03-2023 the concerned Court orders

issuance of process against the respondent. The respondent then

prefers Criminal Petition No.4575 of 2023 seeking to quash the

proceedings in P.C.R.No.1901 of 2023, which had by then become

C.C.No.7870 of 2023. On 21-08-2023 the coordinate Bench rejects

the challenge of the respondent. The plea of the accused is then

recorded.

10. After receipt of a copy from the hands of this Court in

Criminal Petition No.4575 of 2023, the respondent prefers SLP

before the Apex Court on 11-12-2023. From 12-12-2023 till
16

07-11-2024 the matter was pending before the Apex Court. The

orders passed by the Apex Court on different dates are as follows:

11-12-2023:

"To enable the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner to take instructions, list this matter on 13.12.2023."

13-12-2023:

"List on 14th December, 2023."

14-12-2023:

"As of today, we find that there is no understanding
between the parties about appointing a mediator.

To enable the petitioner to file appropriate
undertaking, as discussed in the Court, list tomorrow i.e.
15th December, 2023."

15-12-2023:

"The affidavit of the petitioner affirmed today is
taken on record.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
states as regards clause (B) of paragraph 2 of the affidavit, in
case any specific post is not get taken down, he will
communicate the same to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. The undertaking incorporated in the affidavit is taken
on record.

List on 12th January, 2024.

In the meanwhile, the Criminal Case subject matter of
this petition will not proceed further.
17

We direct the respondent to place on record copies
of the proceedings filed by her. It will be always open for
the respondent to produce a copy of the affidavit filed in
this petition by the petitioner in the pending Civil Suit.

Considering the fact that we are making an attempt
to resolve all the disputes pending between the parties,
none of them shall give any interview or any information
to the media, social and print, in any form."

12-01-2024:

"We give one more opportunity to the contesting parties
to work out a solution which will be in the interest of both of
them.

List on 16th February, 2024.

In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this
Court to continue."

16-02-2024:

"Notwithstanding the grant of time, the parties are unable
to sort out the issues.

Considering the nature of the controversy, the parties will
be well-advised not to make any public statements regarding
any of the litigations pending in different Courts.

List on 7th May, 2024.

In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this
Court to continue."

07-05-2024:

"List on 15th May, 2024 (Wednesday) for directions on the
top of the Board.

In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this
Court to continue."
18

15-05-2024:

"Notwithstanding grant of time by this Court to the
parties, they are not able to reconcile their differences.

We direct the petitioner to place on record copy of
deposition of the respondent recorded in the complaint.

List on 11th July, 2024.

In the meanwhile, interim relief granted earlier by this
Court to continue."

11-07-2024:

"From the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it appears that
that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed
before the High Court when recording of evidence had not
commenced and only after the petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. was dismissed, the recording of evidence commenced.

Notice has been issued.

List for hearing on 13th August, 2024.

Interim order granted by this Court to continue till further
orders."

13-08-2024:

"List on 24th September, 2024 in the first five matters."

24-09-2024:

"Applications for exemption from filing official translation
are allowed.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.
19

To be listed for hearing on 6th November, 2024 in the first
five cases.

Interim order granted earlier by this Court to continue,
pending disposal of this appeal."

06-11-2024:

"List tomorrow i.e. 7th November, 2024 at 2.00 p.m."

07-11-2024:

"The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, on instructions of the appellant who is
personally present in the Court, seeks permission to
withdraw this Appeal with liberty to agitate all the issues
which are raised in this Appeal before the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of as
withdrawn.

All permissible contentions which can be raised by
the appellant as well as the respondent before the Trial
Court are kept open.

It is obvious that the complaint will be decided on its own
merits without being influenced by any observations made by
the High Court in the impugned order."

(Emphasis supplied)

The SLP thus comes to be disposed of on 07-11-2024. Within 30

days thereafter, the respondent prefers a private complaint alleging

offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC against the

petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
20

projected that there is delay on the part of the respondent in

preferring the private complaint.

11. The SLP, as observed hereinabove, was preferred on

11-12-2023 after obtaining certified copy from this Court. The

matter was pending consideration before the Apex Court and

settlement talks were on. On 07-11-2024 the SLP comes to be

withdrawn. The contention of delay is thus devoid of substance.

The chronology of events noted hereinabove unmistakably reveals

that from December 2023 until November 2024 the matter

remained sub-judice before the Apex Court, where efforts at

amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties were actively

pursued. To expect the respondent to initiate parallel

criminal proceedings, during the pendency of settlement

negotiations would be antithetical to both propriety and

prudence. The complaint having been filed within 30 days of

withdrawal of the SLP, the explanation offered is not only

plausible but entirely acceptable. Therefore, the proceedings

are not vitiated on this count, i.e., on the ground of delay in

registration of the complaint.
21

ISSUE NO.2:

Whether Exception 9 of Section 499 of the IPC can

protect the petitioner from further trial in the impugned

proceedings?

12. The next plank of submission of the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner is resting upon Exception 9 to Section 499

of the IPC, predicated on the assertion of good faith. Section 499

reads 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.

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
22

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.

(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z,
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
touching any public question, and respecting his character, so
far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration
23

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct 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.

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
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
24

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.

(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
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
25

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.

(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.
26

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."

Exception-9 of Section 499 of the IPC deals with defence of making

statements in good faith. The petitioner, as observed hereinabove,

had registered a complaint for offence punishable under Section

500 of the IPC. The respondent had preferred criminal petition

challenging the entire proceedings instituted by the present

petitioner, in Criminal Petition No.4575 of 2023 which comes to

dismissed on 21-08-2023. The main contention of the present

respondent in the said petition was that she had made those

statements in good faith and was entitled to the benefit of the ninth

exception. The coordinate bench declines to accept the said

contention by the following observation:

".... .... ....

11. If the statements posted on a private account as well
as the statements made before the print media are examined, I
am more than satisfied that petitioner/accused is bound to face
a criminal trial. The question as to whether the posts made on a
face book account and the statements made before the print
media fall under exceptions is a matter of trial. In order to
claim good faith, the accused must show that before
making the alleged imputation, she has made enquiry
27

with due care and attention. In order to establish good
faith and bonafides, it has to be seen that the
circumstances under which imputations were made and
published. It is only during full-fledged trial, it can be
ascertained as to whether imputations were made with
any malice. It is only in an full-fledged trial, it can be
assessed as to whether there are reasons to accept that
petitioner had taken care and caution and as to whether
there is preponderance of probabilities that petitioner
acted in good faith."

It bears emphasis that this very plea was urged by the

respondent in the earlier proceedings and was repelled by a

coordinate bench of this Court, which held in unambiguous

terms that question of good faith is a matter of evidence to

be adjudicated in the crucible of a full fledged trial. The order

is quoted hereinabove. The law does not countenance a

differential application of principle. What was held to be

triable issue for one party cannot metamorphose into a

shield for the other at the threshold stage. The adage "what

is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander" becomes

apposite, in the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand.
28

13. The legal position stands fortified by plethora of

judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court considers the issue

of exception being projected at the preliminary stage in a case of

defamation. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in

SEWAKRAM SOBHANI v. R.K. KARANJIA1, holds as follows:

".... .... ....

9. A bare perusal of the offending article in Blitz shows
that it is per se defamatory. There can be no doubt that the
imputation made would lower the appellant in the
estimation of others. It suggested that he was a man
devoid of character and gave vent to his unbridled
passion. It is equally defamatory of Smt Shukla in that
she was alleged to be a lady of easy virtue. We need not
dilate on the matter any further. It is for the accused to
plead Ninth Exception in defence and discharge the
burden to prove good faith which implies the exercise of
due care and caution and to show that the attack on the
character of the appellant was for the public good."

The Apex Court was considering a case of defamation and the plea

put up was that it was done in good faith and was protected under

the 9th exception. The Apex Court holds that it is for the accused to

plead 9th exception in defence and discharge the burden to proof in

good faith. Therefore, it is a matter of evidence. The concurring

view of another learned Judge in the very judgment is as follows:

1
(1981) 3 SCC 208
29

".... .... ....

15. The prayer in the application before the High Court
was merely to quash the order dated November 30, 1977 of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal and not to quash the
complaint itself as the High Court has done. But, that was only a
technical defect and we do not take serious notice of it in an
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution where we are very
naturally concerned with substantial justice and not with shadow
puppetry. The position now is this: The news item in the Blitz
under the caption "MISA Rape in Bhopal Jail"
undoubtedly contained serious imputations against the
character and conduct of the complainant. In order to
attract the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Penal
Code, 1860, the imputations must be shown to have been
made (1) in good faith, and (2) for the protection of the
interest of the person making it or of any other person or
for the public good. "Good faith" is defined, in a negative
fashion, by Section 52 of the Penal Code, 1860 as follows:
"Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith'
which is done or believed without due care and
attention". The insistence is upon the exercise of due
care and attention. Recklessness and negligence are
ruled out by the very nature of the definition. The
standard of care and attention must depend on the
circumstances of the individual case, the nature of the
imputation, the need and the opportunity for verification,
the situation and context in which the imputation was
made, the position of the person making the imputation,
and a variety of other factors. Good faith, therefore is a
matter for evidence. It is a question of fact to be decided
on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. So
too the question whether an imputation was made for the
public good. In fact the First Exception of Section 499 of
the Penal Code, 1860 expressly states "Whether or not it
is for the public good is a question of fact". "Public good"
like "good faith" is a matter for evidence and not
conjecture.
... ... ...
18. Several questions arise for consideration if the Ninth
Exception is to be applied to the facts of the present case. Was
the article published after exercising due care and attention? Did
30

the author of the article satisfy himself that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that the imputations made by him
were true? Did he act with reasonable care and a sense of
responsibility and propriety? Was the article based entirely on
the report of the Deputy Secretary or was there any other
material before the author? What steps did the author take to
satisfy himself about the authenticity of the report and its
contents? Were the imputations made rashly without any
attempt at verification? Was the imputation the result of any
personal ill will or malice which the author bore towards the
complainant? Was it the result of any ill will or malice which the
author bore towards the political group to which the complainant
belonged? Was the article merely intended to malign and
scandalise the complainant or the party to which he belonged?
Was the article intended to expose the rottenness of a jail
administration which permitted free sexual approaches between
male and female detenus? Was the article intended to
expose the despicable character of persons who were
passing off as saintly leaders? Was the article merely
intended to provide salacious reading material for
readers who had a peculiar taste for scandals? These and
several other questions may arise for consideration,
depending on the stand taken by the accused at the trial
and how the complainant proposes to demolish the
defence. Surely the stage for deciding these questions
has not arrived yet. Answers to these questions at this
stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded
can only be a priori conclusions. "Good faith" and "public
good" are, as we said, questions of fact and matters for
evidence. So, the trial must go on."

It is clearly held that it is a question of fact to be decided on

particular facts and circumstances of each case. Whether or

not the statement is made for public good is a question of

fact and public good, like good faith, is a matter of evidence
31

and not conjecture. The Apex Court refuses to answer the

exception, on the score that it was not a stage to answer.

14. The Apex Court, later, in IVECO MAGIRUS

BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH v. NIRMAL KISHORE

BHARTIYA2, while considering offences under Sections 499 and

500 of the IPC has observed as follows:

".... .... ....

63. Adverting to the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by
the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a case where the
offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not
been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer
for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High
Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the
accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before
the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that
what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may
not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High
Courts' powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers
are always available to be exercised ex debito
justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone the High Courts exist.
However, the tests laid down for quashing an FIR or
criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the
High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC not being substantially different from the tests
laid down for quashing of a process issued under Section
204 read with Section 200, the High Courts on recording
due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a
reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on

2
(2024) 2 SCC 86
32

oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and
documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made
out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would
amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would
be impermissible, if the justice of a given case does not
overwhelmingly so demand.

64. Based on our understanding of the law and the
reasoning that we have adopted, issue of process under Section
204 read with Section 200CrPC does not ipso facto stand
vitiated for non-consideration of the Exceptions to Section 499
IPC unless, of course, before the High Court it is convincingly
demonstrated that even on the basis of the complaint and the
materials that the Magistrate had before him and without there
being anything more, the facts alleged do not prima facie make
out the offence of defamation and that consequently, the
proceedings need to be closed."

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

The Apex Court holds that the applicability of Exceptions to

Section 499 of the IPC hinges upon factual determination

necessitating evidence and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated

at the stage of cognizance or quashing. Good faith, by its

very nature, is not presumed; it must be pleaded, proved and

established by demonstrating due care, caution and absence

of malice. The enquiry into such matters is impermissible at

this insipient stage.
33

ISSUE NO.3:

Whether the order of taking of cognizance suffers from

non-application of mind?

15. The third plank of submission of the learned senior

counsel is, attack to the order of taking cognizance on the

contention that the order of cognizance does not bear any

application of mind. The said submission, on the face of it, is

unacceptable. The entire order of taking cognizance is as follows:

"ORDERS ON ISSUANCE OF PROCESS

The complainant has filed this private complaint seeking
to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500
of IPC against the accused.

2. After receipt of complaint, sworn statement of
complainant has been recorded and in support of her case, the
complainant has placed copy statement made before media and
publication of that statement in X website, Kannada Prabha
Newspaper, Public TV English website and website of Vistara
news.com and same have been marked as Ex.Cl to 5. The
complainant has produced Hash Certificate issued by experts
with certificate under section 63(4)(c) of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam along with Ex.C1 to 5.

3. After recording sworn statement of complainant, notice
was issued to accused as required under proviso of sub-section
1 of Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
In response to the notice, accused has appeared through
learned counsel and filed objection along with documents.
34

4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and
perused materials on record.

5. The following points arise for consideration of this
court.

1. Whether there is prima facie case to issue process
against the accused?

2. What order?

6. The above points are answered as hereunder:

Point No.1: In the affiramative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:

REASONS

7. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that the
complainant is an Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer and
presently serving as Inspector General of Police (Internal
Security), Government of Karnataka. The complainant secured
43 all India Rank in UPSC exam held in the year 2000. She has
married an IAS Officer and she comes well educated family with
her sister being an IRS officer and her husband being an IPS
Officer of the Tamil Nadu. The complainant has served as
District Police Head of Dharwad District in 2004 and she
arrested and executed a non-bailable warrant against the then
Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh at Hubli. In the year 2013 she
has served as DCP, City Armed Reserve, Bengaluru and she has
withdrawn 216 excess gunman kept unauthorised by as many
as 81 politicians. In the year 2020 the complainant brought out
tender irregularities in Nirbhaya-Safe City project and due to her
proactive efforts, the tender cost about ₹953 crores was
cancelled and fresh tender was called by reducing ₹463 crores
and thereby saved ₹500 crore to the public exchequer. Further,
complainant also served as head of District Police of Gadag,
Bidar, Yadgir, DIG of CID, IGP of Home Guards. DIG Prison, SP
of Cyber Crime, thereby the complainant has reached higher
echelons of service of her hard work and dedication to duty.
Further, complainant was conferred President's Medal,
Kempegowda Award of State Government also conferred ward
from Channels of Zee Kannada, Asianet Suvarna, Anti-
35

Corruption Academy, Lions Club and Newspaper Association.
She invited by Harvard University Students Association to
deliver speech at "India Fest" at Harvard, USA and also invited
by Kaduna, Nigeria to be the chief guest and key note speaker
and she was selected by Israel Embassy as youth Ambassador
and complainant is having popularity in social media by X about
1,11,000 followers. Such being the reputation of the
complainant in the society as IPS Officer, on 19-02-2023 the
accused being a responsible IAS Officer, has made defamatory
press note stating that complainant is suffers from mental
ailment and negatively suggested there is serious issue with the
complainant and denigrates the complainant as an officer, which
was telecasted on various media channels, posted in social
media and also published in many daily newspapers. The
statement made by accused is defamatory and factually
incorrect and baseless, which assassinated character of the
complainant.

8. The accused has appeared through learned counsel and
filed objection along with documents. In the statement of
objections, it is contended by accused that the present
complaint filed by complainant is nothing but a counter blast to
the complaint filed by accused/respondent against the
complainant herein on 28-02-2023 for malicious acts of causing
defamation to accused. The complaint filed by accused herein
was registered as PCR No.1901 of 2023 by the Hon'ble XXIV
ACMM Court and after recording sworn statement it was
registered as CC No.7870 of 2023 and directed to issue process
against complainant herein, the said case was arose on
18.02.2023 when the complainant made multiple unprovoked
false and defamatory allegation on Facebook page against
accused. The respondent is an IAS Officer belonging to
Karnataka Cadre and hails from highly educated and respected
family. She has served with distinction for over a decade in the
Indian Administrative Service, she was instrumental in
introducing various new schemes for effective implementation of
programmes brought by the State Government as CEO of
Mandya and also served as Deputy Commissioner of Hassan.
She is instrumental of launching online portal 'Spandana' which
is Grievance Redressal System at District level in the first time.
When she was serving as Deputy Commissioner of Mysore took
measures to save Government Lands in spite of stiff resistance
from rich powerful and influential land mafia. While serving as
36

Endowment Commissioner she has Introduced Integrated
Temple Management System (ITMS), which is an online
platform whereby devotees get complete information of all-
important temples in the State under the concept of "Daiva
Sankalpa" scheme. The respondent has earned the appreciation
and affection of not only her superior and subordinate officer but
also that of the public at large and she is held in high esteem by
one and all who are known to her for her good conduct,
character, honesty, integrity and uprightness. That being so, as
per document No.1 submitted along with objection, the
respondent came across a Facebook post dated 18-02-2023
which is Facebook of complainant (document No.1 submitted
along with objection) bearing 'D Roopa Moudgil' alleged that no
IAS officer would go for a settlement with an MLA or politician
regarding their official service rendered and for the first time
she heard about that when respondent went settlement with Sa
Ra Mahesh, an MLA. Further, the complainant has uploaded
photos of respondent projecting with negative connotation and
falsely alleging that they were sent by respondent to 'three IAS
Officers', so, she has made serious and unreachable allegation
against the respondent with touches her character and conduct
knowing fully well that same are false and far from truth.
Thereafter, complainant has shared a photograph of WhatApp
chat conversation claiming the same to be that of respondent
(document No.3 submitted along with objection) and it was
shown as deleted. Apart from that in a phone conversation with
an activist the complainant has alleged that due to behaviour of
respondent, her house is not in order and that respondent is like
cancer and entices everyone into her fold and is behind her
(respondent) husband since the last 8 years and has used in the
said conversation with Gangaraju most derogatory words and
clip of same still available in the media at large like Kannada
Prabha Newspapers (document No.4 submitted along with
objection). The above said posts/comments/ allegations made
by complainant on her Facebook page and before media is per
se defamatory. She has made another comment on her
Facebook dated 22-02-2023 (document No.5 submitted along
objection) asking the media to focus on corruption issue against
respondent despite of direction of Government dated
20-2-2023.

9. Thereafter, the respondent has filed complaint before
XXIV ACJM Court on 28-02-2023 against complainant and after
37

recording sworn statement cognizance was taken and issued
process by registering CC No.7870 of 2023 which is produced as
document No.6, aggrieved by said order, the complainant
preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.4575 of 2023 before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking quash the said order
and same was dismissed, copy of the said order is produced as
document No.7. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a Special
Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order
passed in Crl.R.P.No.4575 of 2023, after hearing the matter, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the complainant to delete all
the posts made by her on Facebook against respondent within
24 hours and to file affidavit to that effect and copy of the said
order and affidavit filed in that regard is produced as Document
No.10 and 12. Subsequently, the complainant has filed a civil
suit O.S.No.1269 of 2024 against respondent and copy of plaint
and written statement is produced as document Nos. 13 and 14.
For these reasons the respondent has sought for dismissal of
complaint.

10. The learned counsel appearing for complainant during
the course of argument has submitted that the signed press
statement dated 19-02-2023 released by the accused against
the complainant calling her an mentally ill, which were circulated
in several newspapers, media channels and on social media
platforms such as X Website, has assassinated and bring down
the credibility of the complainant in the society which would
baseless comments and it is become a habit only for the
purpose of defame the 'complainant'. The accused has wrongly
and baseless alleged that the complainant posts her opinions
and shares her thoughts on face book only to remain as the
center of attention and news to show that press statements
which is having viewed by public at large by 183.1K views, 810
likes. The said online article still there on the internet.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused during the course of argument has submitted that after
coming into force BNSS a provision has been inserted so as to
provide an opportunity to accused to hear before taking
cognizance while issuing process. The present complaint is filed
by complainant to counter blast the complaint filed by accused
against complainant in C.C.No.7873 of 2023 to take cognizance
for offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC based on
defamatory statement made by complainant on her Facebook
38

against accused/respondent as shown in documents No.1 to 3
on 18-02-2023 and 19-02-2923 which is derogatory statement
touches the character of respondent not only personal also
official capacity. After that the State Government on 20-02-
2023 has issued a direction directing the complainant herein not
to post such statement. The order of taken cognizance in said
case was questioned by accused before Hon'ble High Court in
Crl.R.P.No.4575 of 2023 was dismissed and the complainant has
questioned said order of Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, when the
mater pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, complainant filed
civil suit in O.S.No.1269 of 2024 against respondent for
damages for defamation. Therefore, the complainant having
knowledge about alleged defamatory statement dated 19-02-
2023 since above said proceedings and sleeping from those
days, at this juncture filed present complaint suppressing said
facts, which is replica of said proceedings, counterblast to said
complaint and afterthought, so the complainant has not
approached the Court with clean hands. When respondent was
called by media regarding said complaint, to defend her
reputation she made such Ex.C1 alleged statement on 19-02-
2023 which comes under exception-9 of Section 499 IPC. The
New three Codes came into force from 01-07-2024, the alleged
act done before that date should have done under old Codes
that is IPC and Cr.P.C. as such the date of alleged statement is
19-02-2023 would comes under IPC and procedure which needs
to be Cr.P.C. not new Code, so complaint should not have been
entertained and court has not got jurisdiction and hence
complaint is deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in
the reply, has submitted that it is clear case of complainant that
Ex.C1 press media statement made by accused on 19-02-2023
is defamatory, which is subject matter of the case, if it is not
defamatory statement, then respondent has to answer how it
does not make defamation, in order to ascertain whether that
alleged statement is defamatory or comes under exception-09
of Section 499 of IPC full fudge trial is required. The prescribed
period for limitation to take cognizance is 3 years from 19-02-
2023 and complaint is in time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
suggested the complainant to take back statement posted in
media, it was not direction. So far as not applicable of New Code
is concerned, Section 358 and 531 of BNSS has clearly states
39

that if complaint is filed after 01-07-2024 procedure of BNSS
has to be follow, if provisions of New Codes are not applicable
as argued by the learned counsel for respondent, the
complainant need not argue the matter at this stage, the court
can take the cognizance of offence after recording sworn
statement. Hence, prayed for take cognizance of offence
punishable under Section 500 of IPC and issue process against
accused.

13. On careful perusal of complaint, sworn
statement of complainant, objection statement and
documents placed on record, it is seen that the
complainant has relied on a signed defamatory press
statement dated 19-02-2023 made by accused against
complainant, which is marked as Ex.C1 and publication of
that statement in X Website, Kannada Prabha Newspaper,
Public TV English website and website of Vistara
News.com and same have been marked as Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.
Further allegation is the statement made by accused is
defamatory statement which assassinated and bring
down the credibility of the complainant in the society. In
order to ascertain prima facie material, it would be useful
to reproduce Ex.C1 press statement dated 19-02-2023
which read as under:

ಾಧ ಮ ೇ ೆ.

ಾನ ಕ ಅಸ ಸ ೆ ಒಂದು ಬಹು ೊಡ ಸಮ ೆ . ಅದನು ಸೂಕ ೈದ "ೕಯ
$" ೆ% ಮತು ೌ(%)ಂ* ಮೂಲಕ ಗುಣಪ/ಸ0ೇಕು. ಜ ಾ0ಾ23ಯುತ ಾನದ)4ರುವವರು
ಾನ ಕ ಅಸ ಸ ೆ7ೆ ಒಳ7ಾದ9ೆ, ಅದು ಸ ಾಜ ೆ: ಬಹು ೊಡ ಅ;ಾಯ ಾ3 0ೆಳವ<7ೆ.

ರೂ;ಾ ಐ>ಎ@ ರವರು, ಜ ಾ0ಾ23ಯುತ ಾನದ)4ದು2, ನಮA BೕCೆ ೈಯ"ಕ
ಹ7ೆಯನು ಾDಸಲು ಾನ ಕ Eತ ೆಯನು ಕFೆದು ೊಂ/ರುವವರ 3ೕGಯ)4
ವGHಸುG ಾ29ೆ.

ಐ>ಎ@ ರೂ;ಾ ರವ37ೆ, ಇ ೊಂದು ಅJಾ ಸ ಾK LMN ೆ. ಅವರು ಇGೕ$ನ
ವಷHಗಳ)4 ಎCಾ4 ಹು ೆ2ಗಳ)4 ಇ ೇ 3ೕGಯ ಆQಾರರRತ ಆ9ೋಪಗಳನು ಾಡುವ
ಮೂಲಕ - ಾಧ ಮಗಳ ಗಮನ ೆFೆಯುವ ಾಗೂ ಾವT ೆ ೕUಸುವ ವ "ಗಳ BೕCೆ
ೈಯ"ಕ ಾK ಹ7ೆತನ ಾDಸಲು "ೕಳVಮಟNದ ಪXವೃGನ ಪXದZHಸುG ಾ29ೆ. ಅವರು
[ಾ ಾಗಲೂ ಸು\2ಯ)4ರ0ೇಕು ಎನು ವTದನು ಬಯಸು ಾ9ೆ ಾಗೂ ಅದ ೆ: 0ೇ ಾದಂತಹ
40

]ೕ@N ಗಳನು ತಮA ಾ ಾ^ಕ ಾಧ ಮದ ¥ÀÄಟಗಳ)4 ಾಕುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಸು\2ಯ
ೇಂದXLಂದು ಾಗಲು ಯG ಸುG ಾ29ೆ.

ಜ ಾ0ಾ23ಯುತ ಾನದ)4ದು2 ಒFೆ_ಯ ೆಲಸಗಳ ಕ`ೆ ಗಮನ ಹ3ಸುವTದನು
LಟುN ಒಬa ವ " ಅಥ ಾ ಇcೊ ಬaರನ ಗು3[ಾK ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ೇdೋವQೆ
ಾಡುವT ೇ ಅವರ ;ಾXಥEಕ ೆಲಸ ಎಂದು ೋರುತ ೆ. ಅದರಲೂ4 ನನ eರುದf
[ಾವT ೋ ೈಯ"ಕ ಹ7ೆಯ( ಟುN ೊಂಡು ಸುಳV_. ೈಯ"ಕ (ಂದcೆಯ ಅg[ಾನವನು
ನ`ೆಸುG ಾ29 ೆ.

ಾ ಾ^ಕ ಾಧ ಮಗ ಂದ ಾಗೂ ಾಟ% ಅh ೆNೕಟ@ ಗ ಂದ ¹ÌçÃi jಾk
ಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಂಗXR ರುವ ]ೕlೋಗಳನು ನನ ೇdೋವQೆ ಾಡಲು ರೂ;ಾ ಐ>ಎ@
ರವರು ಬಳ ಾ29ೆ. ಈ ]ೕlೋಗಳನು cಾನು ೆಲ ಅD ಾ3ಗ 7ೆ ಕಳVR ೆ2ೕcೆ ಎನು ವ
ಸುಳV_ ಆ9ೋಪ. ಾ/ರುವ ಅವರು ಸದ3 ಅD ಾ3ಗಳ ೆಸರನ ಬRರಂಗಪ/ಸ0ೇಕು
ಎಂದು ಅಗXRಸು ೇcೆ.

ನನ eರುದf ರೂ;ಾ ಐ>ಎ@ ರವರು ರೂ;ಾ ರವರ BೕCೆ ಸeೕH@ ಕಂಡnN
9ಾo% ( ೇ ಾ ನ`ೆ ೆ (ಯಮಗಳ) ಉಲ4ಂಘcೆ7ಾK Zಸು ಕXಮ ೈ7ೊಳV_ವಂ ೆ ೋ3
cಾನು ಸrಮ ;ಾXD ಾರದ ಮುಂ ೆ ದೂರು ಸ)4 ೆ2ೕcೆ. ಾಗೂ JಾರGೕಯ ದಂಡ
ಸಂR ೆಯ eeಧ ೆrನsಳ ಅ/ಯ)4 ರೂ;ಾ ಐ>ಎ@ ರವರ BೕCೆ ಎCಾ4 3ೕGಯ
ಾನೂನು ಕXಮಗಳನು ೈ7ೊಳV_ ೇcೆ.

ಇಂತಹ ಆQಾರರRತ ಆ9ೋಪಗ ಂದ cಾನು ಸ ಲtವu eಚ)ತFಾಗ ೆ, ಸ ಾH3
ಅD ಾ3[ಾK ನನ ಕತHವ ಗಳನು ಶX ೆf ಮತು (yೆNzಂದ ಮುಂದುವ9ೆಸು ೇ ೆ ఎంబ
ಅಂಶವನು ಇಂತಹ rುಲ4ಕ ವ "ಗಳ ಗಮನ ೆ: ತರಬಯಸು ೇcೆ.

ಸR
\cಾಂಕಃ 19cೇ |ೆಬXವ3 2023 ZXೕಮG 9ೋR< ಂಧೂ3

14. Thereafter, the above statement has been published
in X website, Kannada Prabha Newspaper, Public TV English
website and website of Vistara News.com. said publication are
being marked as Ex.C2 to 5. As contended by
respondent/accused, Ex.C1 alleged statement is made by
accused on 19-02-2023 and it was published X Website, News
Channel, is an admitted fact. The specific contention of the
respondent/accused is alleged statement comes under the
Exception-9 of section 499 of IPC because it was made in good
faith to protect interest of herself when she was called by media
about complaint filed by her against complainant herein on basis
41

of defamatory statement. In order to ascertain as to
whether that statement was made by accused in good
faith and to protect her interest, whether there was any
malice, whether accused made any inquiry before she
made that allegation, whether there are any reasons to
accept version that she acted with care and caution and
whether there is preponderance of probability that
accused acted in good faith, it requires full fudged trial,
these facts can be ascertained only after full fledge trial.

15. Therefore, by considering the averment of
complaint and documents placed on record and
contention of accused, at this stage, the complainant has
established prima facie case to take cognizance offence
punishable under 500 of IPC and issue process against
accused. Hence, this Court answered above in the
affirmation.

16. Point No.2: in view of discussion made above on
point No.1 his Court proceed to pass the following

ORDER

Cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is taken.

Office is directed to register the case in Register No.III and issue process against accused, if complainant furnished list of witnesses as required u/s 227(2) of BNSS.

Returnable by 22-02-2025.

Sd/-

VII Addl.CJM, Bengaluru"

(Emphasis added) 42 The order of taking of cognizance is quoted in its entirety supra. The concerned Court has painstakingly rendered reasons for taking cognizance and issuing process. The order of taking cognizance runs into 16 pages; not 16 pages of flow of ink, but flow of reasons, as it is trite that the Court at the stage of taking cognizance, is not to take an expedition towards discovery of truth. It is only a peripheral obligation to record reasons as to why the Court is entertaining the complaint and issuing summons to the respondent to answer in a full-fledged trial. It should bear reasons is the settled principle of law. It does bear reasons in the case at hand, not inadequate, but more than adequate. In fact, the entire spectrum of the case of the petitioner and the respondent is considered while taking cognizance and issuing process. The Court also records that under the BNSS, once the private complaint was registered, a notice is issued to the present petitioner, the petitioner appears, files a reply and the reply is considered, cognizance is taken and summons are issued.

16. The order reveals a meticulous and exhaustive consideration of the complaint, sworn statements, objections and documentary material. The learned Magistrate has adverted to rival contentions, framed points for consideration and recorded cogent reasons for arriving at a prima facie satisfaction. It is trite that at the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or embark upon a roving enquiry into the disputed facts. The order impugned reflects neither mechanical exercise nor abdication of judicial duty. On the contrary, it manifests due application of mind commensurate with the stage of the proceedings.

17. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner concerning taking of cognizance as held by the Apex Court in SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL V. CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - (2015) 4 SCC 609, the observations of the Apex Court that there should be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC has been completely complied with, in the case at hand. The order 44 of taking cognizance is elaborate, as quoted hereinabove. Therefore, the said judgment would not become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand.

18. Insofar as the other judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALANKUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383, which only follows its earlier judgment in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL again would not become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand.

19. Further, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB - 1965 SCC OnLine SC 118, it is considered in the case of IVECO supra. Therefore, the said judgment has already borne consideration in the course of the order.

20. In SHAHED KAMAL v. A. SURTI DEVELOPERS [Crl.A.No.2033 of 2025] the Apex Court follows the judgment in IVECO supra and certain circumstances to be considered by this 45 Court while dealing with cases concerning the ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC. The said judgment is rendered on a circumstance altogether different.

21. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order of taking cognizance does not bear application of mind has no legs to stand as it does bear abundant application of mind. Beyond this if the concerned Court had considered the issue, it would have been that the Court has undertaken a roving inquiry of deciphering evidence at the stage of cognizance. Therefore, the tri plank submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner viz., (i) delay in registering the complaint; (ii) the petitioner being protected by the exception and

(iii) the order of taking cognizance being unreasoned, all would tumble down. It is for the petitioner also to come out clean in a full-blown trial, like what the coordinate Bench had held in the case of the respondent for her to come out clean in a full-blown trial. 46

22. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.

Impugned order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.

SD/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ