IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1177/2013 BETWEEN:
B.V.SEETARAM S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD 400-C, INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADI MANGALORE-570011.
(By Sri.K.S.N.KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND MAHENDRA L. NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ADVOCATE SONARWADA KARWAR- 581 301.
(By Sri. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.34/2012 NOW C.C.NO.161/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.J. & J.M.F.C.-II, KARWAR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 500 AND 153 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought to quash the PCR No.34/2012 registered against him for the alleged offences punishable under Section 500 and 153 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent absent. Perused the records.
3. The respondent is a practicing advocate. He filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC seeking action against the petitioner herein and two other persons under Section 500 and 153 of IPC. According to the complainant, he is aggrieved by defamatory contents published by the petitioner and other accused in Kannada newspaper ‘Janantharanga’ dated 6.03.2012. It is stated that the said publication has been made with intent to defame and malign the name of the complainant/respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither editor, printer nor publisher of the aforesaid newspaper. He was merely the owner of the said newspaper. There are no allegations whatsoever that the alleged publication has been made either by the petitioner or in connivance of the petitioner with other accused. As per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, copy of the declaration made in the newspaper would be sufficient evidence as against the persons whose names is subscribed to such declaration liable for any civil and criminal action on account of the labellous matters published in the newspaper. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court and therefore, liable to quash in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
5. I have gone through the complaint filed by the respondent. The complainant seems to be aggrieved by the publication made in Kannada ‘Janantharanga’ dated 6.03.2012. Said publication is published in the readers column and is stated to have been authored by one Ramananda Chouta, that is, accused No.3. There are no allegations whatsoever in the entire complaint that the petitioner herein caused the said publication or that the said publication was made by the petitioner with an intent to defame the petitioner. The only averment made in the complaint is that the petitioner herein was the owner of the said newspaper and with an intent to cause breach of peace in society, said publication has been made by accused Nos.1 to 3. These averments, in my view, do not render the petitioner herein liable for the charge under Section 499 of IPC. In order to constitute the offence under Section 499 the publication or the imputation should be made by the accused intending to harm or intending or knowing reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such persons.
6. There are no averments whatsoever in the compliant that the petitioner herein has published the offending imputations in the above publication. There is also nothing in the said article to suggest that the said publication is made with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. In the absence of any averments in the complaint that the offending publication has been made by the petitioner with an intent to harm the reputation of the respondent, in my considered view, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences cannot be sustained. Moreover, the petitioner not being the editor, printer or publisher of the said publication cannot be imputed with the knowledge or the intention which is a necessary constituent of Section 499 of IPC.
For all these reasons, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner being abuse of process of Court, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in PCR No.34/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Karwar, are quashed only insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.