Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 849 (KAR)

B. Ramanatha Rai v. Rahim Uchil

2021-09-07

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. In this petition, petitioner is seeking for quashment of initiation of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 2611/2019 arose in P.C. No. 159/2017 registered by the respondent/ complainant namely Sri. Rahim Uchil S/o K. Abdula, State Vice-President, Bharathiya Janata Party, Minority Community Morcha and also former President of Beary Sahithya Academy. 2. The respondent herein is the complainant and also gravamen of the incident narrated in his private complaint for having prosecute the case against the petitioner namely Sri. B. Ramanatha Rai, who is arraigned as accused. 3. Heard Sri. Rajesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present before the Court physically. 4. But in this matter, notice has been served upon Sri. Rahim Uchil, who is the respondent/complainant in P.C. No. 159/2017 vide Annexure-A and moreover, he is the gravamen of the incident. That despite service of process against him, he did not participate in the proceedings to proceed further in the case. Therefore, with regard to his absence in this matter, even though process has been duly served, observation has to be made in respect of his interest and so also importance of initiation of criminal prosecution by utilizing the provision of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and so also provision of Section 190(1)(a) and 199 of Cr.P.C. relating to cognizance concept. 5. The criminal prosecution has been launched by him by filing a private complaint before the Court of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). 6. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present before the Court physically taken me through the scope and object of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. relating to prosecution for defamation. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In this provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure having different concept, it is to be termed as Clause 1 to Clause 6. But Clause 4 of this provision disclose that no complaint under sub-Section (2) shall be made by the public prosecutor except with the previous sanction. This concept is altogether different for initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused, who is a representative of the people and also former Minister for State of Karnataka. But Clause 4 of this provision disclose that no complaint under sub-Section (2) shall be made by the public prosecutor except with the previous sanction. This concept is altogether different for initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused, who is a representative of the people and also former Minister for State of Karnataka. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of a person against whom the offence alleged to have been committed to make a complaint in respect of that offence before the Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. Clause 6 of the aforesaid provision of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. relates to prosecution for defamation. 7. The complainant, even though, he is in a specific party i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party has initiated the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused. The complainant has produced Udayavani issued on 24.09.2017 and Jaikirana dated 23.09.2017, in which, defamatory words alleged to be spoken by the petitioner, who being arraigned as accused in the public function/Congress party conference has been reported and the same has to be termed as his surmise and conjecture. The photographs produced by the complainant indicate that they have close association with one Chakravarthi Soolibele. Even the complainant has produced two compact disks relating to speech made by the accused even though it is a public/political function held on 29.09.2017. The respondent, who is arraigned as complainant has not participated in this proceedings despite process has been duly served on him and it indicates that what is an importance and also what is an interest attached to him to initiate the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, who being arraigned as accused for the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 504 of IPC. There shall be some allegations made against Chakravarthi Soolibele in a speech in public function held on 29.09.2017. When the complainant supposed to be aggrieved person or to be termed as a gravamen of the incident, he should participate in the proceedings and also counter to be made even if any sort of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking intervention as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the initiation of the criminal prosecution against the accused in C.C. No. 2611/2019 arose in P.C. No. 159/2017. 8. 8. Even on perusal of the averments made in the complainant and so also the production of certain material documents relating to detrimental words or statements made in the public speech by the petitioner/accused, there are no prima-facie materials or otherwise to say, no ingredients have been made out to constitute the offence under Section 500 of IPC, 1860. Even at any point of time, the congress party workers allegedly to state some abusing words, admittedly, the petitioner, who is a representative of the public, does not utter any sort of defamatory words or any defamatory statement during public function. As such, no case has been made out against the accused by filing a private complaint by the complainant and even initiation of the private complaint as under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. On this premises, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the case in C.C. No. 2611/2019 arising out of case in P.C. No. 159/2017. 9. The last limb of the arguments has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the scope and object of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. relating to prosecution for defamation. Each and every word, sentence, phrase and even each and every word alleged to be used by a person, who is a citizen of the country must be stricto sensu from the latin term, meaning as in the strict sense, strictly or narrowly speaking but it must be considered in a broader sense or broader compose. However, it cannot arise for consideration for initiation of criminal prosecution. 10. But in the instant case, no ingredients have been constituted for the offences lugged against the petitioner being the accused by filing the private complaint in P.C. No. 159/2017 vide Annexure-B. On all these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for quashment of the case in C.C. No. 2611/2019 arose in P.C. No. 159/2017, which is pending before the Court of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru. If not, the accused, who is a gravamen of the accusation as narrated in the private complaint filed by a responsible person would be the sufferer and there shall be some miscarriage of justice. 11. If not, the accused, who is a gravamen of the accusation as narrated in the private complaint filed by a responsible person would be the sufferer and there shall be some miscarriage of justice. 11. As already stated that neither interest nor importance of the respondent, who is arraigned as complainant and even, he is a gravamen of the incident narrated in his private complaint and so also, he is a representative of the people. By working with the Bharatiya Janata Party in a different Unit in that party itself, the respondent did not participate in the proceedings and that itself indicates his interest and also importance for initiation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, who being arraigned as accused. It is only for political gimmicks and also he want to get publicity in the public field as he being involved in the political field in a different political party i.e., Bharathiya Janata Party. But there shall be some issues emerged in between the congress party versus Bharatiya Janata Party as according to initiation for criminal prosecution. Whatever the party in the Society and in Country of India, ultimately, they have to go through ethics of the constitution and also the features and characters of the constitution. In terms of Article 19 Clause 1 (a to g) of the Constitution of India, each one of the clause in that Article 19 of the Constitution of India will give right to assemble, right to profession, right to reside and right to speech. But, it should not affect the rights of other person, which enshrined in the Constitution of India. 12. But in the instant case, there shall be some issues emerged in between the political parties. It should not become the elements in the mouth of the general public and consequently, Clauses 1 to 6 of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. in a different dimension for the people in judicial system and also apply the mind by the Court having the jurisdiction. Simply initiation of the criminal prosecution by a gravamen of the incident is not proper without any acceptable or justifiable reason. However, each and every ingredient shall be having its own force while initiation of the criminal prosecution by choosing the Court having the jurisdiction to deal the matters. Simply filing of the complaint would not serve any purpose. Simply initiation of the criminal prosecution by a gravamen of the incident is not proper without any acceptable or justifiable reason. However, each and every ingredient shall be having its own force while initiation of the criminal prosecution by choosing the Court having the jurisdiction to deal the matters. Simply filing of the complaint would not serve any purpose. However, keeping in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is deem it appropriate to state that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. consists of three limbs and each one of the limb should be taken into consideration in its stricto sensu and also thinking process of the parliamentarian/law makers as well as the enactment of this law. Nothing in this Court shall be deemed to be limit, neither affect nor effect any order under this Code to exercise inherent power. 13. The first limb of the provision of law for seeking intervention whatever order has been passed by the Court having jurisdiction to intervention, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice and accused, being the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer. The second limb of this provision is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. The third limb of this provision is otherwise to securing the ends of justice. However, the grave man of the incident i.e., complainant, who initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused either by filing a private complaint by choosing the provision of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or even filing the complaint before the police station having jurisdiction to deal the matter and also proceed in further. But abusing process of any Court is equally applicable to both the complainant, who is the grave man of the incident and the accused, who is the grave man of the accusation. Therefore, it is required for intervention under this provision. If not, the accused would be the sufferer and there shall be a miscarriage of justice would be caused to him. However, the third limb of the said provision is otherwise to secure the ends of justice, it is in a greater extent be applicable to both complainant and the accused. Therefore, it is required for intervention under this provision. If not, the accused would be the sufferer and there shall be a miscarriage of justice would be caused to him. However, the third limb of the said provision is otherwise to secure the ends of justice, it is in a greater extent be applicable to both complainant and the accused. It is an important limb of the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise, securing ends of justice is only extendable to the grave man of complainant, who narrated in his complaint approaching either the police having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or filing the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. so far as the offences lugged against the accused. Whereas, the Court should exercise its inherent power keeping in view the material facilitated by the parties for consideration. If not, certainly, the grave man of the accusation would be the sufferer. Therefore, in this matter, it requires for intervention. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be allowed. 14. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (ii) Consequently, the case in C.C. No. 2611/2019 arising out of P.C. No. 159/2017 pending before the JMFC (II Court) at Mangalore is hereby quashed. (iii) The petitioner/accused is hereby absolved from the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 504 of IPC.