IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2813 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI.B.N.VENKATESH S/O LATE B NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GENERAL SECRETARY, TAEKWONDO ASSOCIATION OF BANGALORE URBAN NO.551, 3RD MAIN ROAD, WEST CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE 560 086 (BY SRI: KIRAN. J, ADVOCATE FOR M/S SHETTY & HEGDE ASSTS ) AND C.G.SHASHIVARDHAN S/O C V GURUVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS GENERAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA TAEKWONDO ASSOCIATION, SHREE KANTEERAVA STADIUM COMPLEX, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 (BY SRI: S N SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND BEARING NO.P.C.R.NO.15187/12, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A). QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN MATTER BEARING C.C.NO.23820/12, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE, (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
Petitioner is accused No.3 in C.C.No.23820/2012 arising out of PCR No.15187/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. PCR No.15187/2012 was filed by the respondent - complainant against three accused persons, on the allegation that the letter at Annexure-“E” carried defamatory, malicious and scurrilous statements against the complainant; the same was published by Accused nos.1 and 2 in their official website and newspaper ‘Prajavani’, as a result of which the respondent has been defamed. It is alleged in the complaint that with deliberate intention to defame the respondent, Accused Nos.1 and 2 deliberately blacklisted the respondent and circulated the letter to all the Districts in Karnataka and also displayed the same in the website of Taekwondo Federation of India.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the offending letter was issued by Accused No.1 Harish Kumar IPS (Retired) in his capacity as the President of Taekwondo Federation of India, under his signature. The petitioner was neither the author of the said letter nor has he circulated the said letter in all the Districts of Karnataka nor uploaded it on the website and no material has been produced by the complainant to show that the petitioner herein was instrumental in either publishing the alleged letter or uploading it on the website of Taekwondo Federation of India. On the other hand, the letter relied on by the complainant indicates that the copy of the said letter was marked to the petitioner herein.
Therefore, the question of the petitioner publishing the said letter does not arise at all. The contents of the said letter cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no basis for the prosecution of the petitioner. In view of the above submissions, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC is illegal and untenable.
5. A reading of the letter Annexure-‘E’ indicates that the said letter was issued by Accused No.1- Harish Kumar in his capacity as a President of the Taekwondo Federation of India. In the said letter, it is specifically stated that the respondent has misused the powers of State Taekwondo Association and has violated the rules and regulations of TFI by taking money from athletes under various heads and conducting DAN promotion Tests without mandatory approval of the Federation as per Circular-24 DAN Promotion Tests. Copy of the circular is also produced. Therefore, even there is no reason to hold that the allegations made in the said complaint amount to any defamation.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has seriously opposed the submissions and would contend that accused No.2 has entered into conspiracy with Accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance thereof, Accused No.3 has made the offending publications and therefore, petitioner/accused No.3 is also equally culpable for the alleged offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint, wherein it is stated that the complainant having come to know about certain financial irregularities committed by accused No.2 complained the same to accused No.1 and hence, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy to defame the complainant and cooked up false charges with a malafide intention to defame the complainant.
7. The above accusations, in my view, do not attract Section 120B of the IPC. The essence of Section 120B is an agreement to do an illegal act. There is not even a remote allegation in the entire complaint that there was an agreement between Accused Nos.1 and 2 to defame the respondent so as to lay the foundation for the alleged conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC. Insofar as this petitioner is concerned, there is not even a remote allegation that the alleged publication has been made either at the instance or connivance of the petitioner. On the other hand, the complainant has proceeded on the basis that he has been defamed by issuance of a letter by Accused No.1. Even though a plea is taken up in the complaint that the allegations made in the said letter are false or cooked up, there is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant – respondent has challenged the letter issued by Accused No.1 to blacklist him for the alleged illegalities.
8. As already stated above, in the said letter, a reference has been made to the circular which is binding on the complainant and it is alleged that on account of violation of the terms of the regulations, the complainant has been blacklisted. In the absence of any material to show that the action taken by Accused No.1 has been challenged by the complainant, there is absolutely no basis for the complainant to contend that on account of the said publication in the newspaper, he has been defamed. Further, the contention of the respondent that he has been defamed on account of the publication of the said letter in ‘Prajavani’, also cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings against the petitioner herein, as the records indicate that the petitioner was not instrumental in printing or circulation of the said ‘Prajavani’ newspaper. No action appears to have been taken against the Printer, Publisher or the Editor of the said publication.
9. The records disclose that Accused No.1 has tendered unconditional apology and on account of the said apology, he has been dropped from the prosecution. This apology suggests that the responsibility of making the publication has been owned up by Accused No.1 himself. Even otherwise, Annexure-“E” has gone under the signature of Accused No.1 making it evident that the alleged letter was issued only by Accused No.1 and not by Accused No.3. Therefore, there was no justification for the complainant to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120B and under Section 500 of IPC.
10. As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner – Accused No.3 in C.C.No.23820/2012 pending on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Annexure-“B”), for the aforesaid offences are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-