IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6343/2014 BETWEEN:
1.S B NANJUNDAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, MARUTHI NAGAR, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DIST-573 103 2.A P CHANDRAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRINTER & EDITOR OF ARASIKERE NEWS, AGGUNDA, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573 103 3.LIBERTY ENTERPRSES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHIVADEV,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OPP.TO HOTEL VANDANA, COTTONPET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. SADASHIVAIAH K G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DIST-573 103 2.THE TOWN CLUB REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K C YOGESH, S/O CHADRASHEKARAIAH AGED 55 YEARS, B H ROAD, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DIST-573 103 3.THE TOWN CLUB REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, H G VEMLATESH, S/O GOVINDARAJASHETTY, AGED 48 YEARS, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573 103 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R-1 By Sri.M.V. REVANASIDDAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SR.C.J AND JMFC, ARASIKERE IN C.C.NO.164/14 (PCR NO.28/14) DATED:24.6.14.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, dated 24.6.2014, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken congnizance of offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC. and has issued summons to the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the records.
3. The second respondent, The Town Club represented by its President and Secretary filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC.
4. In the complaint, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 being the Reporter/journalist, petitioner No.2 being the owner and publisher and petitioner No.3 being the printer of a monthly news paper “Arasikere News” published defamatory articles in their news paper in Volume-1, issues-1, of April 2013, containing defamatory allegations as:
“PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ gÀÄ¥Á¬Ä ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸À¨sÁ D¹Û PÀ§½¸À®Ä mË£ï PÀè¨ï ¸ÀAZÀÄ”
“PÉ.¹.AiÉÆÃUÉñï C¢üPÁgÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨És ªÀiÁgÁl, CPÀæªÀÄ PÀ§½PÉUÉ ¸ÀAZÀÄ”
D¹Û PÉÆqÀÄUÉÊ zÁ¤UÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÉêÁ zsÀÄjtgÁzÀ PÉ.ªÉAPÀl ¸Áé«Ä CªÀjUÉ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ D¹Û PÀ§½¸ÀĪÀ zÀÄgÁ¸É EvÁÛ”
5. According to the complainant, the above allegations are perse defamatory and are calculated to defame the Club, which was established in 1936.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the various proceedings taken against the Club and the various resolutions passed by the Club from time to time, to impress upon the Court that the impugned publication was well founded and by the said publication, the petitioners have brought to the notice of the public certain illegal activities carried on by the respondent-Club.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however has referred to the impugned publication and has pointed out that the publication made in the front page with the caption that the Club has hatched a conspiracy to alienate the valuable properties of the Club and the said conspiracy has taken place during the tenure of Sri.K.C.Yogesh itself is defamatory. The contentions urged by the petitioners are based on the plea of justification and truth which the petitioners are entitled to urge in the course of trial. Thus, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are the reporter, printer and publisher of Arasikere News. The contents published by the petitioners are extracted above. There is nothing on record to show that the Club has alienated any part of its property ever since its establishment in the year 1936. In the said circumstances, the publication made by the respondents being baseless prima-facie constitutes defamation as defined under Section 499 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences. The contentions urged by the petitioners are in the nature of defence, which could be set up only at the time of trial.
9. Thus reserving liberty to the petitioners to substantiate their defences in the course of trial, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.