Sri G K Venkata Shiva Reddy vs Sri K.R.Ramesh Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1546 Kant

                            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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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