Mr.K.Rakesh Raje Urs vs Smt.Sujatha Bopanna
2022 Latest Caselaw 3910 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7830 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.     MR.K.RAKESH RAJE URS
       S/O LATE G.KRISHNE URS
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       EDITOR, CITY TODAY
       NO. 777, GROUND FLOOR
       RAMANUJA ROAD
       MYSURU - 570 017.

2.     SMT. MAYA B. SRIDHAR
       W/O K.RAKESH RAJE URS
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       M/S VIDHYAASHRAM
       EDUCATION FOUNDATION ®
       NO.12, TEMPLE ROAD,
       JAYALAKSHMIPURAM
       MYSURU - 570 017.
                                              ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI PARAMESHWAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.SUJATHA BOPANNA
W/O LATE P.C.BOPANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO. 594, 11TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
                               2



GOKULAM, V.V MOHALLA
MYSURU - 570 002.
                                                     ... RESPONDENT

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.N.3164/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
1st CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 499, 500 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.3164/2016, wherein IV Additional 1st

Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru issued process to the accused -

petitioners after taking cognizance for the offences punishable

under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.

2. Heard Brijesh Patil, learned counsel for

Sri Parameshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:

The petitioners are President and Secretary of

M/s Vidhyaashrama Educational Foundation, which runs an

educational institution called 'Vidhyaashram First Grade

College'. The respondent/complainant who was earlier working

at Mahajana's Pre-University College joins the College as its

Principal. Certain dispute arose between the Principal and the

functionaries of the Foundation due to which, the respondent

submits her resignation. The resignation was accepted and the

respondent was relieved from service. After the respondent was

relieved, the functionaries of the Foundation/petitioners herein

issued a public notice in local newspaper "City Today" informing

the public with regard to the activities of the respondent. This

has triggered registration of a criminal case against the

petitioners. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance for

offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC on

05-11-2016 and the proceedings have gone on since then.

Aggrieved thereto, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this

Court in the subject petition contending that the very act of the

learned Magistrate taking cognizance for the offence of

defamation is contrary to law.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners are protected under exceptions 4

and 10 of Section 499 of the IPC, which protects acts of the

petitioners from the offence of defamation and would submit

that the public notice would not defame the respondent but only

bring it to the notice of the public about the relevant facts. He

would place reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of A.J. RAMACHANDRA AND

OTHERS v. K.B. PRASANNA KUMAR reported in Crl.P.No.623

of 2018 disposed of on 05.06.2018.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

perused the material on record.

6. The employment of the complainant in the College run

by the petitioners is not in dispute. The respondent resigning

from the services of the College is also not in dispute. The

petitioner No.2 - accused No.2 registered a criminal case in

Crime No.39 of 2015 against the respondent - complainant for

the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is also not in dispute.

What becomes the bone of contention is, the public notice issued

by the petitioners against the respondent after her resignation

from the College. Since the entire issue springs from the notice,

the same is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready

reference:

"PUBLIC NOTICE The general public, students, parents are hereby informed that a criminal complaint (FIR No.0039/2015, Jayalakshmipuram police station under IPC Section 1860 U/s-420) has been registered against Mrs. Sujatha Bopanna, the former principal of Vidhyaashram First Grade College for criminal conspiracy, breach of trust and cheating.

The said person has desperately tried to lure students to a fictitious entity called Sapient and then to Mandavya First Grade College and thereafter to Sapient Kautilya First Grade College and lastly to Kautilya First Grade College, thereby indulging in criminal conspiracy against Vidhyaashram First Grade College.

Being in the seat of a principal, she has openly identified with institutions that have no legal sanctity from the University of Mysore and deliberately sabotaged the academic activity in Vidhyaashram First Grade College, thereby indulging in breach of trust.

The said person has indulged in many financial irregularities and misappropriation thereby cheating the institution that appointed her as the principal and as a custodian to safeguard its interests and finance.

Mrs. Sujatha Bopanna is advising & counselling students through public advertisements to join Kautilya First Grade College that has no legal sanctity from the University of Mysore to set up a college in 2447, Snake Shyam Road, Vijayanagar II Stage - as mentioned in the public notice issued by the University of Mysore - CDC - 2/56/2015-16 issued on 25-06-2015.

The management would like to therefore, notify and inform students, parents and members of public at large, in their own interest, not to fall prey to the designs of the said person who is tarnishing the image of our institution."

(Emphasis added)

Immediately on issuance of the said notice, the subject

complaint is registered by the respondent invoking Section 200

of the Cr.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners is unacceptable on a perusal of the notice.

The notice clearly narrates that the respondent has indulged in

many financial irregularities and misappropriation thereby

cheated the Foundation that appointed her as Principal of the

College and several other statements being made. The

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the

petitioners are protected by Exceptions 4 and 10 appended to

Section 499 of the IPC. Exceptions 4 and 10 read as follows:

"Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.--It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.

... ... ... ...

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."

Fourth exception is reports of proceedings of Courts. The

petitioners have not reported any proceedings of Court to claim

protection under this exception. The tenth exception deals with

caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for

public good. Public notice is claimed to have been issued for

public good but what is published is alleged defamatory

statement against the respondent, informing the public that the

respondent has indulged herself in several financial

irregularities and misappropriation and cheated the Foundation,

all of which, have to be determined by a competent Court of law.

Therefore, the offences alleged under Sections 499 and 500 is

prima facie made in the complaint registered by the respondent.

Both the exceptions on which the learned counsel for the

petitioners places reliance upon are not applicable and do not

offer protection to the petitioners.

7. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel

for the petitioners in the case of A.J.RAMACHANDRA (supra) is

distinguishable without much ado as the said judgment deals

with functions of a learned counsel in a case of defamation to

quote that despite the exceptions, there is a case made out for

taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance on the subject

complaint reads as follows:

"ORDERS I have perused the complaint. Sworn Statement, and the documents. Complainant has produced the relevant documents. On perusal of the document, the Complainant was an economic Lecturer as well as Principal in Mahajanas College in Mysuru. Due to her personal problem she has resigned the said job and joined Kautilya I Grade College as a Principal. Such being the case, the Accused has published a defamatory statements about the Complainant in his own Daily News Paper called "City Today" as well as "Shakthi" the daily newspaper at Kodagu, since the Complainant is originally come from Kodagu District, stating that the Accused has misused the funds of the said institution and defame the Complainant in the esteem of Public as well as the student of the said institution.

Here I would like to mention the decision reported in:

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.184 of 2014 reported in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Ors. Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the Law relating to defamation protects the reputation of each individual in the perception of the public at large. It matters to an individual in the eyes of the society. Protection of individual right is imperative for social stability in a body polity and that is why the State makes laws

relating to crimes. A crime affects the society. It causes harm and create a dent in social harmony. When we talk of society, it is not an abstract idea or a thought in abstraction. There is a link and connect between individual right and the society; and the connection gives rise to community interest at large. It is a concrete and visible phenomenon. Therefore, when harm is caused to an individual, the society as a whole is an affected and the danger is perceived. Therefore, the contention that the criminal offence meant to sub-serve the right of inter se private individuals but not any public or collective interest in totality is sans substance. To constitute offence of defamation U/s. 499, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made.

I am satisfied that the complainant has made out a prima facie case to Issue process against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 499 of IPC. Hence I pass the following:

ORDER • Office is directed to register a Criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 499 and 500 of IPC and to issue summons to the accused by RPAD & COP, call on 02.02.2017."

The learned Magistrate records the statements and observes that

the public notice issued would definitely lower the image of the

complainant in the eyes of the Society and accordingly, takes

cognizance. It is not a case where a bald cognizance order is

presented for judicial review at the hands of this Court.

Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioners is inapplicable to the facts of the case.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is dismissed.

(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court shall not be bound or be influenced by the observations made in the course of this order, insofar it concerns further proceedings pending before it.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021

does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE nvj/CT:MJ