ORDER : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. Petitioner in these three petitions is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in PCR Nos.3557/2018, 9983/2018 and 5513/2021, wherein in all these private complaints, petitioner is accused of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 499, 500 and 504 of IPC. Crl.P.No.4935/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.3557/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Crl.P.No.7106/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.9983/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Crl.P.No.5260/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.5513/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 120B(1), 499, 500 and 504 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The gravamen of the allegations in all the three private complaints is that the present petitioner, Prashanth Sambhargi, unlawfully procured photographs of the complainant and furnished the same to the Editors-in- Chief of Bangalore Mirror and News18. It is alleged that, acting upon the said material, the respective media houses published and broadcast news items along with the photographs, thereby allegedly defaming the complainants and causing serious injury to their reputation and social standing. The private complaint in PCR No.3557/2018 is instituted by Roopa M.S., whereas the other two complaints, namely PCR Nos.9983/2018 and 5513/2021, are filed by her husband, Y.K. Devanatha. In all the three complaints, the petitioner is accused of having acted with malice and ulterior motive in collecting the private photographs of the complainants and circulating the same to the media with an intention to malign their character and tarnish their reputation in society. In PCR No.3557/2018, the complainant Roopa M.S. claims to be a highly qualified professional, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering (Electronics and Communication), a degree in Law, and a Master’s degree in Law. She asserts that she is a practicing Advocate before the High Court of Karnataka and various trial courts and that she has been carrying on a successful legal practice for the past seven years, with clients across the country. According to her, the unauthorized use and publication of her photographs by the Editors of the concerned print and digital media, allegedly at the instance of the petitioner, have gravely damaged her professional credibility, personal reputation, and social image, besides adversely affecting her agricultural activities and family relationships. On these premises, she has instituted the said private complaint. According to her, the unauthorized use and publication of her photographs by the Editors of the concerned print and digital media, allegedly at the instance of the petitioner, have gravely damaged her professional credibility, personal reputation, and social image, besides adversely affecting her agricultural activities and family relationships. On these premises, she has instituted the said private complaint. The complainant’s husband, Y.K. Devanatha, has filed two separate private complaints, one against the Editor-in-Chief of Bangalore Mirror and another against the Editor-in-Chief of News18, in which the present petitioner is also arrayed as an accused. In these complaints, Devanatha alleges that the petitioner coerced and induced him into executing an agreement for sale by holding out threats and that he was further subjected to extortion. He contends that due to constant pressure and intimidation, he was unable either to disengage from the transaction or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings at the relevant point of time. It is further alleged by Devanatha that on 19.06.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., he was apprehended by the CCB police and was thereafter handed over to the jurisdictional Subramanyapura Police at about 12.30 a.m. on 20.06.2018. According to him, the said action was a direct consequence of a complaint lodged by the petitioner on 28.03.2018, wherein it was alleged that Devanatha had received an advance amount of Rs.52,00,000/- in connection with a property transaction relating to immovable property bearing Khata No.7/1, Khaneshumari No.6 and other survey particulars situated at Simhadri Layout, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru. The petitioner had alleged that despite receipt of the advance consideration, Devanatha neither executed the sale deed nor returned the amount, resulting in registration of a criminal case in Crime No.127/2018. Devanatha asserts that owing to the alleged malicious acts of the petitioner, he was arrested and was constrained to seek bail, which came to be granted on 21.06.2018. It is also alleged that in PCR No.9983/2018, the present petitioner, arraigned as accused No.2, misused his alleged proximity and access to the print media by supplying false, unverified, and misleading information to accused No.1, the Editor-in-Chief of Bangalore Mirror. Acting upon such information, the Editor allegedly published an article without conducting any due diligence. The article, titled “‘Tagaru’ actor in real life ‘Khosla Ka Ghosla’ – The cheat is on the left, right and centre”, was published along with photographs of the complainant. Acting upon such information, the Editor allegedly published an article without conducting any due diligence. The article, titled “‘Tagaru’ actor in real life ‘Khosla Ka Ghosla’ – The cheat is on the left, right and centre”, was published along with photographs of the complainant. The complainant asserts that the publication was wholly baseless, false, and motivated, and was intended to defame him and subject him to public ridicule and humiliation. According to the complainant, the publication of the said article and photographs has caused irreparable harm to his reputation, severely tarnished his public image, and adversely affected his professional and business prospects, including opportunities in the film industry. He attributes the alleged defamatory publications a deliberate and malicious acts of the petitioner, who is stated to have acted in concert with the Editors of the respective print and digital media outlets. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three private complaints has vehemently contended that the proceedings initiated by the complainants, namely Roopa M.S. and her husband Y.K. Devanatha, are a clear abuse of the process of law and are intended solely to harass the petitioner and settle personal vendetta. It is submitted that the impugned private complaints were instituted only after the petitioner had earlier initiated criminal proceedings against the complainants and, therefore, the present complaints are retaliatory in nature, filed with a mala fide intention to misuse the criminal justice system. 4. Drawing the attention of the Court to the pleadings and the material placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no nexus between the petitioner and the Editors of Bangalore Mirror or News18. The petitioner is neither an employee nor in any manner associated with the said print or digital media entities. Hence, even if the allegations made in the private complaints are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner, much less the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that there is no allegation that the petitioner himself authored, published, or caused the publication of any defamatory material, and in the absence of such foundational facts, the essential ingredients of defamation are conspicuously lacking insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 5. It is argued that there is no allegation that the petitioner himself authored, published, or caused the publication of any defamatory material, and in the absence of such foundational facts, the essential ingredients of defamation are conspicuously lacking insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invoked the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, contending that the multiplicity of criminal proceedings launched by both the complainants constitutes an abuse of process, aimed at exerting pressure on the petitioner and interfering with civil disputes that are admittedly pending adjudication before competent civil courts. In this regard, reliance is placed on paragraph 22 of the petition filed in Criminal Petition No.7106/2022, wherein a tabular chart is furnished to demonstrate the repetitive nature, timing, and pattern of the private complaints filed against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainants has supported the orders of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate in all the three private complaints. Referring to the averments in the complaints, the documents annexed thereto, and the statement of objections filed, it is contended that there is sufficient prima facie material on record to proceed against the accused. The complainants deny the allegation that the complaints are frivolous or retaliatory, on the contrary, assert that it was the petitioner who had earlier initiated false criminal proceedings against them, which culminated in the filing of a ‘B’ Report after investigation, thereby evidencing misuse of the process of law by the petitioner himself. 7. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the complainants has drawn the attention of this Court to the tabular chart furnished along with the statement of objections, which purportedly sets out the chronology of events, the sequence of defamatory publications, and the alleged acts of forging security documents by the petitioner with an intent to unlawfully usurp the complainants’ property. It is contended that the cumulative effect of these acts of harassment necessitated the filing of the present private complaints. 8. Referring to the said material, learned counsel for the complainants would submit that the petitioner has engaged in a deliberate, systematic, and continuous attempt to malign the character and reputation of both the complainants by making false allegations and by misusing his alleged access to media platforms. 8. Referring to the said material, learned counsel for the complainants would submit that the petitioner has engaged in a deliberate, systematic, and continuous attempt to malign the character and reputation of both the complainants by making false allegations and by misusing his alleged access to media platforms. It is urged that the complaints contain specific factual assertions against the accused which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold and can only be tested on evidence during trial. It is therefore argued that the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the proceedings at this nascent stage merely on the premise that he has a defence to offer. 9. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the complainants. The Court has carefully perused the nature of allegations made in the three private complaints, the sequence of events leading to their institution, and the material placed on record by both sides. 10. Before adverting to the question as to whether the allegations made in the complaints, even if accepted in their entirety, would constitute the commission of any offence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the three private complaints filed by Y.K. Devanatha and Roopa M.S., who are husband and wife, respectively. 11. Para 4, 5 and 9 of PCR.No.3557/2018 filed by Roopa-respondent in Crl.P.No.4935/2022 would be relevant and the same are extracted as under: "4. It is submitted that the Accused No.2 without the complainant permission had illegally taken photos and uploaded and shared the photos of the complainant. The complainant herein apprehends the misuse of the photos in future dates. 5. It is submitted that the accused no.2 had given the complainant's photo to accused no.1 on 22.06.2018 and the Accused no.1 had used said photos of the complainant intentionally to harass and defame the image of the complainant and the accused no 2 had voluntary given his statement/news before "BANGALORE MIRROR". The news published in "BANGALORE MIRROR" on 22.06.2018 in the front page titled as ""Tagaru' actor in real life 'Khosla Ka Ghosla' - THE CHEAT IS ON THE LEFT, RIGHT & CENTRE" and also continued at page no. 8: Defaming Statement with image/photo of the complainant. The copy of the Bangalore mirror news-paper article is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.1." "9. 8: Defaming Statement with image/photo of the complainant. The copy of the Bangalore mirror news-paper article is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.1." "9. The complainant submits that the documents produced herewith itself falsify the entire claim of the Accused No.2. The Accused No.1 before publishing the malicious article should have enquired with the complainant as to the facts, who would have thrown light on actual facts. Accused No.1 without following the ethical value of Journalism has published the news article to harass and defame the complainant at the instance of the Accused No.2." 12. Para 10 and 13 of PCR.No.5513/2021 filed by Y.K.Devanatha/ respondent in Crl.P.No.5260/2022) would be relevant and the same are extracted as under: "10. On 22.06.2018, the accused no.1 used the photographs of the complainant which are illegally obtained and used the same photographs to impute/harm the reputation of the complainant in the world at large by sharing the photographs of the complainant with accused no.2, 3 & 4 with a self-made cooked up story of the accused no.1 against the complainant." "13. It is submitted that repeated allegations were repeatedly made on 22.06.2018 and on 23.06.2018 in the News18 channel, published on its youtube channel and official websites by the accused no.2 to 5. The accused no.1 made false and defamatory statement through phone and the same can be viewed in in youtube channel in the following link: OPTHECHIEF https://youtu.be/o-NOJ I-tLO www.bing.com/videos/search?q=news18+kannad a%2c+devanatha%2c+tagaru&&view=detail|=4184 05893543C8F4AA7A418405893543C8F4AA7A&&FORM= VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dnews18% 2Bkannada%252c%2" 13. Para 7, 8 and 9 of PCR.No.9983/2018 filed by Y.K.Devanatha/respondent in Crl.P.No.7106/2022 would be relevant and the same are extracted as under: "7. The complainant submits that even when the complainant was enlarged on bail on 21-06-2018, within 24hrs of the said incident itself, the Accused No. 2, who has strong connection with print media circulated false information to the Accused No.1 and the Accused No.1 without verifying the veracity of the information given by Accused No.2, and even without enquiry as to the veracity or otherwise of such information, published in the Bangalore Mirror, English Daily New papers, intentionally to harass and defame the image of the complainant. The news published in "BANGALORE MIRROR" on 22.06.2018 in the front page titled as 'Tagaru' actor in real life 'Khosla Ka Ghosla' THE CHEAT IS ON THE LEFT, RIGHT & CENTRE" and also continued at page no. 8: Defaming Statement with image/photo of the complainant. The news published in "BANGALORE MIRROR" on 22.06.2018 in the front page titled as 'Tagaru' actor in real life 'Khosla Ka Ghosla' THE CHEAT IS ON THE LEFT, RIGHT & CENTRE" and also continued at page no. 8: Defaming Statement with image/photo of the complainant. The copy of the Bangalore mirror newspaper article is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.5. 8. The Accused No.2 who was in proximity with the complainant herein during their friendship days had illegally and without the permission of the Complainant had obtained photograph of the complainant herein, posing along with the Bangalore City Police Commissioner, Actor Dr. Shivaraj Kumar, and the former Deputy Chief Minister Shri. R. Ashok. The said photograph were used to defame the complainant. The Accused No.1 while publishing the said photograph referred the complainant as "cheat" also published certain statements which are not at all true and more over the facts which are contrary to actual facts. The complainant was called for an enquiry to CCB at 6.00 pm from Advocates office, Basavanagudi, later on at 12:30am the CCB Police handed over the complainant to the Subramanyapura Police in false case Cr.No. 127/2018 which was filed on 28/03/2018. The statement stating that the complainant was "caught while buying a Gandhinagar property after cheating a businessman in sale of Uttarahalli site" is completely false and baseless. The publication further states that the complainant was "in jail for last two days". It is pertinent to note that the complainant was enlarged on bail on 21-06-2018 with in 24hrs of the Police custody. However, the newspaper report claimed that the complainant was sent to Judicial custody even though complainant was not sent to the judicial custody at any point of time………………………………… ……..The Accused No.2 passed on false information to Accused No.1 who intern without verifying the truth published the news article which is far from the truth and also the contents not only defamed the complainant herein it also defamed the complainant's wife, the Bengaluru City Police Commissioner, the Cine Actor and the former Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka………………. 9. The complainant submits that the Accused no.1 with an intention to malign the complainant and defame him created a false story at the instance of the Accused No.2 and published the said article, the contents of which are far from truth. 9. The complainant submits that the Accused no.1 with an intention to malign the complainant and defame him created a false story at the instance of the Accused No.2 and published the said article, the contents of which are far from truth. The accused no.1 being in a responsible position is under the obligation to verify the veracity or other wise of the information which he had received before publishing it in the newspaper. The Accused No.2 illegally downloaded and stolen the private and personal photographs of the complainant and others and passed it on to the Accused No.1 who published it in the newspaper and tarnished the image of the complainant." 14. Upon a careful, close, and analytical scrutiny of the averments made in all the three private complaints, the central question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether, even if the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.2 are accepted in their entirety, the essential and foundational ingredients of the offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. The answer to this question goes to the very root of the matter and is determinative of the sustainability of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 15. The object underlying Section 499 of the IPC is to protect an individual’s reputation, which has been consistently recognised as an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The provision is intended to safeguard the dignity, honour, and social standing of a person. Defamation may be committed not only through express statements but also by way of implied imputations or innuendo. However, for an act to fall within the ambit of Section 499, it is imperative that there exists a deliberate act of making or publishing an imputation concerning a person, coupled with the requisite intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the person concerned. 16. Viewed in the aforesaid legal framework, this Court is required to examine whether the act attributed to the petitioner namely, the alleged act of furnishing certain photographs and information to the Editors of print and digital media outlets constitutes an offence under Section 499 of the IPC. 16. Viewed in the aforesaid legal framework, this Court is required to examine whether the act attributed to the petitioner namely, the alleged act of furnishing certain photographs and information to the Editors of print and digital media outlets constitutes an offence under Section 499 of the IPC. Significantly, it is not the case of the complainants that the petitioner himself authored, edited, published, or otherwise disseminated any article or material containing defamatory imputations. The solitary allegation is that the petitioner supplied certain material to third parties, who thereafter allegedly published the same. The pivotal question, therefore, is whether such conduct, in isolation, is sufficient to attract criminal liability for defamation. 17. On a meticulous reading of the complaints, tested against the statutory ingredients of Section 499, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, there is no material whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner either made or published any imputation with the intention to harm, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that such imputation would harm, the reputation of the complainants. The mere act of supplying photographs or factual information, absent any role in the authorship, editing, or publication of the allegedly defamatory content, does not by itself satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence. The alleged conduct of the petitioner lacks the requisite mens rea and, in any event, does not amount to “publication” of defamatory matter within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC. 18. These complaints also cannot be examined in isolation, divorced from the surrounding factual matrix. The record discloses that there are ongoing civil and criminal disputes between the parties, primarily arising out of a property transaction involving a substantial monetary consideration. It is an admitted position that complainant Y.K. Devanatha was arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint lodged by the present petitioner in relation to the said transaction and that the disputes between the parties are presently sub judice before competent courts. In this background, the sequence, timing, and multiplicity of the private complaints filed by the husband and wife unmistakably give rise to a strong inference that the present proceedings are retaliatory in nature and are in the nature of a counterblast to the legal action initiated by the petitioner. 19. In this background, the sequence, timing, and multiplicity of the private complaints filed by the husband and wife unmistakably give rise to a strong inference that the present proceedings are retaliatory in nature and are in the nature of a counterblast to the legal action initiated by the petitioner. 19. This Court cannot be oblivious to the possibility that the impugned complaints have been instituted not for the bona fide vindication of legal rights, but as a means to harass, intimidate, and exert pressure on the petitioner, who is already embroiled in adversarial civil and criminal litigation with the complainants. While the complainants may, if so advised, have an independent cause of action against the Editors or publishers who actually carried the impugned articles, there is absolutely no prima facie material on record to demonstrate the petitioner’s involvement in the act of publication or to establish the existence of any intention or knowledge to defame. The tenuous and remote link sought to be drawn between the act of supplying information and the ultimate publication is legally insufficient to sustain a charge of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner in the absence of any prima facie material would amount to allowing a clear abuse of the process of law. The petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial merely because he has been arrayed as an accused, when the allegations against him, even if accepted as true, fail to satisfy the statutory requirements of the offences alleged. Such unwarranted prosecution would infringe the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and would defeat the very purpose of the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in PCR Nos.3557/2018, 9983/2018, and 5513/2021 is wholly unjustified, vexatious, and legally unsustainable. The private complaints, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are therefore liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 22. 21. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in PCR Nos.3557/2018, 9983/2018, and 5513/2021 is wholly unjustified, vexatious, and legally unsustainable. The private complaints, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are therefore liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 22. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petitions in Crl.P.No.4935/2022, Crl.P No.7106/2022 and Crl.P No.5260/2022 are hereby allowed; (ii) Consequently, the proceedings in PCR No.3557/2018 and the order taking cognizance in C.C. No.10103/2021, pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioner is concerned; (iii) The proceedings in PCR No.9983/2018 and the order taking cognizance in C.C. No.32348/2018, pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioner is concerned; (iv) The proceedings in PCR No.5513/2021 and the order taking cognizance in C.C. No.27387/2021, pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B(1), 499, 500, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.