IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9637/2016 A/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9638/2016 IN CRL.P.NO.9637/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI R. VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O. LATE RATTEHALLI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS PRESIDENT, GOVERNING COUNCIL OF MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
2. DR. MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MURALIDHAR W/O. SRI T. MURALIDHAR BHAGAVAT AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS HON. SECRETARY GOVERNING COUNCIL OF MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
3. DR. P.R. NAGA SRINIVASA S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY N. POORIGALI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS MEMBER, GOVERNING COUNCIL OF MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) RESIDING AT NO.97, 1ST FLOOR 7TH MAIN ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
4. SRI N. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE M. NANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS TREASURER, GOVERNING COUNCIL OF MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.16, “PRAKRUTI”
MAHAJANA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
5. SRI T. MURALIDHAR BHAGAVAT S/O. RAGHAVENDRA BHAGAVAT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD) R/AT NO.17, 4TH MAIN ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
6. SRI B.N.S. RAVIKUMAR S/O. B. SURYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) B.S. RAVIKUMAR AND CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT R/AT NO.73, 2ND FLOOR MADHWESHA COMPLEX NAZARABAD MYSURU-570 010.
7. SRI G.R. ASHWATHNARAYANA S/O. SRI. G. RAJAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) C/O. GENERAL MOTORS TANK STREET CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.P. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR SRI SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV.) AND:
DR. K.S. NAGAPATHI S/O. LATE SRIPATHI HEGDE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.208, 2ND MAIN ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ISMAIL, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE ORDER OF SUMMONING THE ACCUSED DATED 01.10.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3133/2016 (PCR NO.1363/2016) BY THE IV ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
IN CRL.P.NO.9638/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. HARISH S/O. LATE G.V.B. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.60/1, 2ND CROSS 4TH BLOCK, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
2. SRI R.N. PRATAP S/O. LATE R.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.2906, ‘BHAGYA’ GOKULAM ROAD V.V. MOHALLA MYSURU-570 002.
3. SRI K.B. SRINATH S/O. LATE B.V. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.122, 4TH MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012.
4. SRI S. GOVINDARAJ S/O. SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.878/2, CH.42 LAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 004.
5. DR. DEJAMMA M.
W/O. LATE M.S. PADMARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS MEMBER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) R/AT NO.229/19, 4TH MAIN 16TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA MYSURU-570 014.
6. PROF. P. SAROJAMMA S/O. LATE N. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.P. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR SRI SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV.) AND:
DR. K.S. NAGAPATHI S/O. LATE SRIPATHI HEGDE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.208, 2ND MAIN ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 012. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ISMAIL, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE ORDER OF SUMMONING THE ACCUSED DATED 01.10.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3133/2016 BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In these petitions, the petitioners have sought to quash the complaint and the order summoning the accused, dated 01.10.2016 in C.C.No.3133/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & J.M.F.C., Mysuru.
2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein seeking action for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioners herein got a news item published in ‘Star of Mysore’, an English Daily Evening newspaper on 10.11.2015 under the headlines:
“FORMER MAHAJANA TOURISM DEV. INSTT. DIRECTOR ACCUSED OF CHEATING MES accuses Prof. Nagapathi of cheating the Institute of Rs.3.32 Crore Mysuru: Nov.10 (RS & DM) – Former Director Mahajana College Tourism Development Institute Prof. K.S. Nagapathi has been accused of cheating Mahajana Educational Society (MES) to the tune of Rs.3.32 Crore.
Prof. Nagapathi is accused of opening separate bank accounts and depositing cash collected from the students in these accounts with the connivance of SBM’s Jayalakshmipuram and Metagalli Branch Managers.
Following a complaint MES Hon. Secretary Dr.T. Vijayalakshi Muralidhar on Nov.1, Jayalakshmipuram police have registered cases against Prof. Nagapathi and the two Bank Managers, under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the IPC.
Details: The complaint states that Dr. Nagapathi who was the Director of Mahajana College Tourism Development Institute located on KRS road near JK tyres (Vikrant Tyres), had misused Rs.3.32 crore collected from students between Nov.27, 2009 and Oct.31, 2015.
Prof. Nagapathi, a resident of second main, Jayalakshmipuram, had opened individual Bank accounts in SBM’s Metagalli & Jayalakshmipuram branches, without the consent of Mahajana Educational Society and deposited the money collected from the students in excess of the stipulated amount, into his accounts thus cheating MES.
The complainant also alleged that the Managers of SBM’s Metagalli and Jayalakshmipuram Bank branches too have connived with Prof. Nagapathi by allowing him to open accounts without the permission of MES management.
Jayalakshmipuram police who have registered a case in this regard are investigating. Meanwhile, all efforts by SOM to contact Prof. Nagapathi over the phone went in vain as his phone was switched off”.
3. Alleging that the contents of the above publication are defamatory in nature, respondent has sought prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the petitioners herein were not involved in the publication of the above said defamatory article. The publication is said to have been made, based on the complaint lodged by the second petitioner in her capacity as Secretary of Mahajana Education Society. Since, the petitioners have not published any defamatory article against the petitioners, the ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code are not attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioners is patently illegal. Further, he submitted that the alleged publication has been made by the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the aforesaid newspaper ‘Star of Mysore’, the prosecution of the petitioners is not maintainable under law or facts of the case.
5. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following authorities:
“(i) 1997 CRI.L.J. 3851:
Vedurumudi Rama Rao Vs. Chennuri Venkat Rao and another (ii) AIR 1999 SC 1028:
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others Vs.
Uttam and another (iii) LAWS (KAR) 2002 (5) 28:
T. Satish U. Pai Vs. Narayan Nagappa Nayak (iv) 2005 CRI.L.J. 2498:
Valmiki Faleiro Vs. Mrs. Lauriana Fernandes and others etc.
(v) 2006 CRI.L.J. 720:
Darusing Durgasing Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr (vi) 2010 CRI.L.J. 2660:
G. Janardhana Reddy Vs. A. Narayana Reddy and Anr (vii) LAWS (KAR) 2015 (11) 18 Madhu Sharma Vs. R.L. Vasudev and Ors.
(viii) LAWS (KAR) 2016 (3) 161:
Siddanna and Ors. Vs. Bassayya (ix) LAWS (SC) 2017 (12) 4:
Mohammed Abdulla Khan Vs. Prakash K.”
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioners are the authors of the complaint lodged before the Police and therefore, the petitioners are primarily responsible for the alleged publication and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners is justified and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings. Insofar as non-implication of the Printer, Publisher and Editor of the said publication is concerned, the learned counsel has argued that, at appropriate stage, the Editor and the Publisher would be implicated and hence, merely on that ground, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8. The respondent appears to have aggrieved by the publication of a news item in ‘Star of Mysore’, an English Daily Evening newspaper dated 10.11.2015 which is extracted as above. A reading of the said publication goes to show that, based on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.2 namely, the Secretary of Mahajana Education Society, the alleged publication has been made.
9. In order to constitute an offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, essentially, there must be publication of imputation concerning the aggrieved person. The gist of the offence lies in dissemination of harmful imputation. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code defines the offences of defamation as under:
“499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”
10. There is nothing in the above publication to indicate that the petitioners are responsible for the publication of offending article or news item. Going by the averments made in the complaint, it can be gathered that the said publication was made by the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the newspaper and not by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the said publication. Consequently, there was no cause of action for the respondent to proceed against the petitioners. Further, the facts narrated in the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners herein. The contention of the respondent that the complaint lodged by the 2nd petitioner has furnished a cause of action to proceed against the petitioner for alleged offence also does not merit acceptance. The contents of the F.I.R cannot be treated as the basis for prosecution for the offence of defamation. F.I.R. is a public document and is intended for the public authorities to take cognizance of the complaint and therefore, if any report is published in the newspaper, based on the contents of the F.I.R., it would not amount to defamation, as it squarely falls within the fourth exception of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution of the petitioners for the above offence is legally untenable and consequently, the proceedings initiated the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3133/2016 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Mysuru are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed against the Printer, Editor and Publisher of the offending publication in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE ST