IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4319 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
ISHWARAPPA NAIK S/O T.P THAMMANNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ADVOCATE, JOSEPH NAGAR, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI: A. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND T P MANJUNATHA SHETTY S/O. BABU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O. "SATYAPREMA", ASHOKA ROAD, SAGAR 577401 SHIMOGA DISTRICT (BY SRI: B N SHETTY, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:8.5.13 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SAGAR IN C.C.NO.208/13 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.63/2002 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 500 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sagar, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of IPC and has issued summons to the petitioner/accused.
Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.
2. The offending statements attributed to the petitioner are part of the cross-examination of witnesses in F.D.P. No.1/2000. During the course of cross-examination, petitioner herein appearing as counsel for respondents therein elaborately cross-examined the witness touching the execution of the Will purported to have been executed by late Sanjeeva Shetty. According to respondent herein/complainant, the cross- examination conducted by the petitioner is per se defamatory and is calculated to malign the respondent. The relevant portion of the cross-examination which according to the respondent is defamatory in nature is extracted herebelow:
“vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ºÁQzÀ 8 ¢ªÀ¸ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «¯ï C£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ. vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvæÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ ªÁ¥Á¸ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîgÀÄ ¤ Dgï 3 ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvæÀªÀ£ÀÄß N¢AiÉÄà vÀPÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. vÀPÀgÁj£À°è «¯ï JAzÀÄ DVzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀ vÁjÃPÀ£ÀÄß §gÉ¢®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, DzÀgÉ §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉ. D L J 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 PÉÌ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ºÁQzÀ ¢ªÀ¸À ¤ Dgï 3 ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvæÀ C¹ÛvéÀzÀ°èAiÄÉ Ã EgÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è DzÀÝjAzÀ¯Éà ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvæÀzÀ vÁjÃPÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀgÁj£À°è PÉÆnÖ®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÀQîjUÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉý SÁ°Ã ¥ÉÃ¥Àj£À £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ gÀÄdĪÀiÁrPÉÆlÖ ¥ÉÃ¥Àj£À ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvæÀ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ EzÉ C£ÄÀ ߪÅÀ zÄÀ ¸ÄÀ ¼ÀÄî ªÄÀ ÈvÄÀ å ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÈÀ ¶Ö ªÀiÁrzÉÃ£É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî . ¤ Dgï 3 §gÉ¢gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÁUÀzÀ, ªÀQîgÀÄ PÉÆÃnðUÉ §¼À¸ÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÁUÀzÀ CAvÀ CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀQîgÀÄ ªÉÃj¦üPÉñÀ£ïUÁV ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è eÁUÀ ©lÄÖ JgÀqÀÄ gÀÄdÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ PÁUÀzÀ EzÀÄ DVzÉ CAzÀgÉ EzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. ¢:14.9.2000gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ¤ Dgï 3 ¥ÀvæÀ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÄÀ Ñ DV vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ DVgÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ºÁUÁV ¢:14.9.2000gÀ ªÀgÉUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ »AzÉ DVzÀAvÀºÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À°è «¯ï£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤ Dgï 3 «¯ï §gÉzÀÄ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÁådåªÉà ªÀÄÄVzÀÄ ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ, PÉÆÃnðUÉ §gÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀAUÀªÉà EgÀ°®è. ±ÀgÁªÀw C¦Ã®Ä PÉÆÃnð£À°è Cfð ºÁQzÀÝjAzÀ «¯ï KPÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «¯ï KPÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è CAvÀ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è. C¦Ã®Ä ªÀÄÄVzÁUÀ «¯ï ££Àß ºÀwÛgÀ«vÀÄÛ.
¢:21.9.1999gÀAzÀÄ «¯ï C£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ. D PÁ®PÉÌ MAzÀÄ PÁ¦ ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîjUÉ PÉÆqÀ°®è. «¯ï£À°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ «ZÁgÀ ¥ÀÆwð ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ. ¤ Dgï 3 DVzÉ CAvÀ ºÉüÀĪÀ vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ C.zÁ 99:94 wêÀiÁð£Éà DVgÀ°®è CAvÀ CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¤ Dgï 3 ¥ÀvæÀ ªÀ£ÄÀ ß £Á£ÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîgÀÄ PÉÆÃlÄð zÁR¯ÁwAiÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆA¢¹ £ÉÆâzÉÝÃªÉ ºÉÃUÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¢:14.9.2000 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¤ Dgï 3 «¯ï ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃªÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
x x x x x x x x x ¤ Dgï 3 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:14-9-2000gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ J¯ÉÆÃf gÁªï, UÉÆëAzgÁdÄ ¸ÉÃj n.© ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ±ÉlÖgÀ D¦üù£À°è ¤ Dgï 3 ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrØzÉÃªÉ CAvÁ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj C®è. ¤ Dgï 3£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrØzÉÝÃªÉ CAvÁ ºÉüÀĪÀ ¢ªÀ¸À ¸ÀAfêÀ ±ÉlÖgÀÄ fêÀAvÀ EgÀ°®è CAvÁ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj C®è. ¸ÀAfêÀ ±ÉlÖgÀÄ fêÀAvÀ EzÁÝUÀ ªÉj¦üPÉõÀ£ïUÁV SÁ° ¥ÉÃ¥Àj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖ gÀÄdÄ«£À PÁUÀzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀQîjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ «®è£ÀÄ ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrØzÉÝÃªÉ CAvÁ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
3. This evidence in my view cannot be construed as defamatory of the respondent. The petitioner has merely extracted answers from the witnesses by suggesting the defence of the respondent. There is nothing in the said cross- examination to suggest that the said questions were put to the witnesses with intent to malign the respondent.
4. A bare perusal of the above deposition indicates that all those questions relate to the execution of the Will propounded by plaintiff in O.S.No.99/1994 which is stated to have been put forward for the first time by the respondent in FDP. Under the said circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for respondent that the petitioner has exceeded his limits by putting questions to the witnesses is totally irrelevant. The Will having been put forward by the respondent himself at the FDP stage, the above cross-examination was relevant and admissible. If for any reason, the questions put to the witnesses were irrelevant, it was the duty of learned Magistrate to restrain the petitioner.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any scandalous questions were asked within the meaning of section 151 of Evidence Act.
5. Section 151 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-
151. Indecent and scandalous questions.—The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.
6. Learned Magistrate having not chosen to take any action against petitioner under section 151 of the Evidence Act, there was no cause of action for the respondent to invoke section 500 IPC. Moreover, the said statements having been made in the course of judicial proceedings are exempted under “Eighth Exception” to section 499 of IPC. Under the said circumstances, learned Magistrate has committed serious error in taking cognizance of alleged offence and issuing summons to the petitioner/accused. The cross-examination conducted by the petitioner, read as a whole, does not make out the ingredients of section 499 IPC and in that view of the matter, prosecution initiated against petitioner being illegal and abuse of process of court is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.5.2013 in C.C.No.208/2013 and the consequent proceedings on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Sagar are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss