The Karnataka High Court reecently set aside the Magistrate order under Section 156(3) CrPC referring complaint filed for defamation under Section 499, 500 IPC to Police for further investigation.
The single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was adjudicating upon a petition questioning pending proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
Brief Facts of the Case
It was alleged in the previous complaint that the petitioner is a habitual money lender and the complainant comes in contact with him and also borrows money by way of hand loan. Case has been registered against him for offfences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 420 and 323 of the IPC.
Earlier, the Court has dismissed both the petitions on the score that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in the teeth of the allegations made in those complaints. Pursuant to it, a private complaint was registered by the complainant.The allegation in the present complaint is that the petitioner after dismissal of the cases (supra) has circulated messages on WhatsApp group depicting the complainant to be a 420; not only 420 he should be labeled as 840 because he has filed two cases against him.
Case was again registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC r/w Section 67 of the Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued and contended that the very complaint was not maintainable in the teeth of the Ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC which takes away the effect of defamation to become punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and would submit that Section 67 of the Act also cannot be invoked as it is not even defamatory and circulated amongst a particular group.
High Court's Analysis
The Court noted at the outset that the subject WhatsApp message depicts that the complainant is a con artist of Bangalore, smooth talker and a 420 and also narrates that multiple cases are registered against him in different police stations and the man is on a look out to cheat anyone.
Noting that Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Act, the Court questioned his action.
It refferred to ruling in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, 2016 Latest Caselaw 932 SC wherein it was held that where the complaint made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate involves offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate cannot exercise powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. so as to direct Police to register a crime and then investigate into the offence, in view of the specific bar contained in Section 199 of the Cr.P.C.
In view of this, the Court observed that this would become applicable even in cases where offences are alleged of other provisions of law along with Section 500 of the IPC.
It thus ruled that the impugned Magistrate order is a nullity in law. Observing that therefore the proceedings require to be obliterated, the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate to take up such proceedings bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
