IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1794/2013 BETWEEN:
1. B.V. Seetaram, S/o late Venkataraman Aged about 58 years, Chairman & Director, 2. Rohini Seetaram Managing Director, Aged about 50 years, Chitra Publications Pvt. Ltd., 400-C, Industrial Area, Mangalore 570 011. ….Petitioners (By Smt. Neeraja Karanth, Adv. for Sri K.S.N. Karanth,Adv.) AND:
Smt. Shankunthala W/o M. Monappa Gowda Aged about 55 years R/at ’Shreeshesh House” Site NO.40, Lalbahadur Shastry Extn., Maroli, Mangalore 570 005 ….Respondent.
(By Sri. M.J. Alva, Adv.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.279/2009 now C.C.No.266/2013 pending on the file of the JMFC-II, Mangalore for the offence punishable under Seiction 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in PCR No.279/2009(C.C.No.No.266/2013) presently pending on the file of JMFC., II Court, Mangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The contention of the petitioners are that they are the owners of “Karavali Ale”, Kannada Daily News Paper. They are not instrumental in publishing or editing the News Paper, wherein defamatory statements are alleged to have been published. That by virtue of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only the persons declaring in the News Paper as printer, editor and publisher are liable for criminal prosecution for the publication in the concerned News Paper. The petitioners herein are only the owners of the said News Paper and therefore, they are not liable for prosecution for the alleged offence. Further it is contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 500 of IPC and hence, on this score also prosecution of the petitioners being illegal and abuse of court, is liable to be quashed.
4. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Abdulla Khan Vs. Prakash K, reported in AIR 2017, SC 5608, and with reference to para No.17 thereof has emphasized that even owners of the publication are equally responsible for the defamation committed on account of the publication made in the concerned News Paper.
5. Insofar as the averments attracting the offence are concerned, learned counsel has referred to para No.10 of the private complaint and has pointed out that the allegations made therein attract the provisions of Section 500 of IPC, and Section 502 of IPC and even otherwise, it is always open for the trial court to alter charges or frame additional charge as long as the elements of those sections are satisfied. It is contended that since prima facie material is available in proof of the offence committed by the petitioners herein under Sections 500 and 502 of IPC, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. Insofar as the legal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, has held as under:
“17. We must make it clear that for the acts of printing or selling or offering to sell need not only be the physical acts but include the legal right to sell i.e. to transfer the title in the goods-the newspaper. Those activities if carried on by people, who are employed either directly or indirectly by the owner of the newspaper, perhaps render all of them i.e., the owner, the printer, or the person selling or offering for sale liable for the offences under Section 501 or 502, IPC, (as the case may be) if the other elements indicated in those Sections are satisfied.“ In view of this proposition, the legal contention urged by the petitioners is rejected.
8. Insofar as the averments attracting the elements of the alleged offence are concerned, on going through the complaint and the offending publication, I find that necessary averments are made to the effect that the petitioners herein were also part of the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof they maliciously published the offending article including the family history of the complainant, thereby making out a clear case for prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences.
9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as owners or publishers, petitioners are entitled to report events and incidents in public interest, is only a defence, which needs to be substantiated only during trial. The said plea cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings which are otherwise maintainable under law.
In view of the aofresaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings in PCR No.279/2009(C.C.No.266/2013) pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE psg