IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2441 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Sri M. Arunesh, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.37/1, Premier Rich Wood, Flat No.302, 1st Cross, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012.
2. Sri. Balasubramanyam, Aged about 71 years, S/o Late Seshagiri Rao, R/o No.162, “Pratishata”, 36th A Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 082.
3. Sri. Narendra Hegde Aged about 55 years, R/at No.37/1, Premier, Rich Wood, Flat No.101, 1st Cross, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012.
4. Sri. Sathyamurthy Aged about 66 years, S/o Late L.S. Seshagiri Rao, R/at No.103, Sterling South End Apartments, 30th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 082.
5. Sri. Ramachandra Navale Aged about 35 years, No.37/1, Premier, Rich Wood, Flat No.G-2, 1st Cross, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012.
6. Sri Keshavan Aged about 65 years, R/at No.37/1, Premier, Rich Wood, Flat No.103, 1st Cross, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012. …Petitioners (By Sri. L.S.Venkatakrishna, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. P.M. Vijendra Rao S/o P.K. Madava Rao, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.37/1, Premier, Rich Wood, Flat No.301, 1st Cross, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore-570 012.
2. Sri. M.B. Naga Kumar Aged about 48 years, R/atNo.2270/1, Chitharanjan Mahal, Vinobha Road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012. ...Respondents (By Sri. A. Mahesh Chowdhary, Advocate for Sri. Shahbaaz Hussain, Advocate for R-1;
Sri. M. Ashwathnarayana Reddy, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint dated 09.04.2012 filed by the complainant in PCR No…../2012 before the JMFC-II Court, later numbered in C.C.No.2263/2012, dated 16.4.2012 on the file of the IV Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore as Annexure-A and proceedings in C.C.No.2263/2012 on the file of the IV Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, taking cognizance of an offence U/S 500 IPC, and directing the registration of PCR as not disclosing a commission of an offence U/S 499 IPC with such ancillary and consequential orders including the award of costs.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 499/500 of Indian Penal Code. On taking cognizance of the offences, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued summons to the petitioners.
Petitioners have sought to quash the order of summons and proceedings initiated against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint filed against the petitioners is motivated. Petitioners herein had earlier approached the Consumer Court seeking damages for construction of toilet above his kitchen. The said petition was dismissed. Only after dismissal of the said petition, by suppressing the pendency of appeal, Respondent No.1 has filed the instant complaint making false and baseless allegations. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. The publications made by the petitioners are protected under 6th exception and hence, prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the averments made in the complaint and the documents produced in support thereof clearly make out the ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code.
5. On going through the averments made in the complaint and the documents relied upon by the petitioners, I find that prima facie case has been made out for prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences. Petitioners do not dispute that they had sent e-mails to the complainant. Copies of the e-mails produced along with the petition contains imputations to the effect that respondent No.1 had hired goondas for demolishing the structure and that respondent No.1 has committed illegal act by demolishing the toilet built by the petitioners. These e-mails were forwarded to the members of the entire group prima facie making out the ingredients of the above offences. The trial Court therefore has rightly taken cognizance and issued summons. The contentions urged by the petitioners based on prior litigation and that the statements were expressed in good faith, are in the nature of defence, which require to be substantiated only during the course of trial. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC