Karnataka High Court
Kowdle Chanappa vs P. Ramakrishnegowda on 1 March, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8679
CRL.P No. 5090 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5090 OF 2017 (482)
BETWEEN:
KOWDLE CHANAPPA
S/O CHIKKACHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT KAVERI BUILDING,
VINOBA ROAD,
SUBASHNAGARA,
MANDYA-571421
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
P. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MANDYS DISTRICT CENTRAL
Digitally signed CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
by MANDYA-571421
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA .K., ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2017 PASSED BY THE
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN
CRL.R.P.NO.213/2016 AND RESTORE THE CASE IN PCR NO.692/2015
(C.C.NO.2440/2016) ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 499 AND 500 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8679
CRL.P No. 5090 of 2017
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following relief:
a. Quash the order dated 21/3/2017 passed by
the Learned V Additional District and Sessions
Judge Mandya in Crl.RP No. 213/2016 and
restore the case in PCR No. 6922015
(CC.No.2440/2016) on the file of the Learned
Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC , Mandya the offence
punishable under section 499 & 500 of IPC in
to meet the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner had filed a private complaint in PCR
No.692/2015 under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with Section 499 and 500 of
the IPC alleging that a defamatory article has been
published by respondents in the newspaper called
"Kemmugilu".
3. Initially cognizance having been taken and notice
having been ordered, the respondent challenged the
same in Criminal Revision Petition in
CRP No.123/2016, wherein the VI Additional District
and Session Judge, Mandya by order dated
NC: 2024:KHC:8679
21.3.2017 allowed the petition and set aside the
order of cognizance and dismissed the complaint.
Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this
Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
in an article published in the newspaper there have
been allegations which have been made against the
petitioner as regard misappropriation of funds and
misuse of the property of the Co-operative Society
which prima facie is defamatory and as such the
Revisional Court has not taken this aspect into
account, the ingredients of Section 499 having been
fulfilled, the Revisional Court ought not to have set
aside the order of cognizance.
5. Learned counsel for respondent would however
submit that the publication which has been made is
in terms of the Show Cause notices issued by the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mandya
dated 25.3.2010 which finally ended up an order
NC: 2024:KHC:8679
being passed against the petitioner on 27.2.2013 and
it is thereafter that the publication was made on
26.9.2013.
6. The reportage made by the newspaper is on the
basis of proceedings before a Governmental
Authority where the Governmental Authority has
taken up action against the petitioner. The said
reportage only amounts to reporting the occurrence
of events and there is no allegation made against the
petitioner during such proceedings which have been
initiated and as such reportage cannot be said to be
defamatory in nature.
7. Heard Sri.Chandrashekara.K.A., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sushmitha.K.
learned counsel for respondents. Perused papers.
8. Having gone through the offending Article which has
been extracted by the Revisional Court in para. 13 of
its impugned judgment, comparing the same with
the showcause notices and the order passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:8679
officers of the Co-operative Society from 25.3.2010
to 27.2.2013 at Annexure-R1 to R4. It is seen that
the Article which has been published is in terms of
the allegations made and the order passed in those
proceedings. Hence, I am of the considered opinion
that the reportage which has been made of the
occurrence of events before the offices of the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies is only a coverage
of the news and cannot be said to be defamatory, no
grounds being made out the petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SR
