Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1072 (KAR)

R. Vasudevamurthy v. K. S. Nagapathi

2019-06-03

ALOK ARADHE

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for Sri.Srikanth Patil K, learned counsel for the petitioners. None for respondent. Records perused. The petition is admitted for hearing and heard finally. 2. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short), the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of the proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Mysuru. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent has filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners on the basis of the news item published on 07.02.2016 in Andolana Kannada Daily newspaper under the caption One more Complaint is filed against Prof.Nagapathi. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and directed issuance of summons to the petitioners. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no part of the news item states about the involvement of the petitioners excepting that Mahajana Education Society has lodged an additional complaint against the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioners are neither involved nor had knowledge about the alleged publication of the news item. It is further submitted that the respondent has neither impleaded the Editor, Printer or the Publisher of the newspaper. It is also submitted that the aforesaid newspaper is neither printed nor published by the petitioners. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not made out against the petitioners. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9637/2016 a/w Criminal Petition No.9638/2016 dated 26.02.2019 between the same parties. 5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The respondent appears to be aggrieved by the news item dated 07.02.2016, which has been published in Andolana Kannada Daily newspaper under the caption One more Complaint is filed against Prof. Nagapathi. 7. 5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The respondent appears to be aggrieved by the news item dated 07.02.2016, which has been published in Andolana Kannada Daily newspaper under the caption One more Complaint is filed against Prof. Nagapathi. 7. In order to constitute an offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, essentially, there must be publication of imputation concerning the aggrieved person. The gist of the offence lies in dissemination of harmful imputation. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code defines the offences of defamation as under: "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 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." 8. There is nothing in the above publication to indicate that the petitioners are responsible for the publication of offending article or news item. Going by the averments made in the complaint, it can be gathered that the said publication was made by the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the newspaper and not by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the said publication. Consequently, there was no cause of action for the respondent to proceed against the petitioners. Going by the averments made in the complaint, it can be gathered that the said publication was made by the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the newspaper and not by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the said publication. Consequently, there was no cause of action for the respondent to proceed against the petitioners. Further, the facts narrated in the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners herein. The contents of the F.I.R cannot be treated as the basis for prosecution for the offence of defamation. F.I.R. is a public document and is intended for the public authorities to take cognizance of the complaint and therefore, if any report is published in the newspaper, based on the contents of the F.I.R., it would not amount to defamation, as it squarely falls within the fourth exception of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution of the petitioners for the above offence is legally untenable and consequently, the proceedings initiated the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3134/2016 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Mysuru are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed against the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the offending publication in accordance with law, if so advised.