IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7971 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Shafiulla, S/o Abdul Razak, Aged about 57 years, Residing at J.M. Road, Mudigeri Taluk, Chickamagalur District – 577 101.
2. S.Manjunath, S/o late Shivaramaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/at Narayanapura 2nd Cross, Basavanahalli, Chickamagalur – 577 101.
3. Rajashekar R., S/o C.R.Rangashetty, Aged about 51 years, R/at Ashtalakshmi Nilaya, Church Road, Vijayapura, Chikmagalur – 577 101.
4. M.Rajegowda, S/o Muddegowda, Aged about 54 years, R/at Kalidhasanagara, 2nd Cross, Chikmagalur – 577 101.
5. Francis Curia, S/o late T.Curia, Aged about 63 years, R/at Belt Road, 2nd Cross, Chikmagalur – 577 101.
6. Nanjegowda, S/o late Subbegowda, Aged about 55 years, R/at No.92, Housing Board, 3rd Cross, Nearby BSNL Office, Joythinagar, Chikmagalur – 577 101.
7. A.V.Ananatharamaiah, S/o A.Venkataramaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/at Varthabhavan Road, Basavanahalli, Chikmagalur- 577 101. …Petitioners (By Sri.Roopesha B., Advocate) AND:
Syed Althaf, S/o Syed Amer Pher, Aged about 58 years, Working as Mechanic Grade – II, Unit No.4 Rural Sub Division, MESCOM,Chikmagalur – 577 101. ...Respondent (By Sri.Mohan K.N., Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 17.07.2013 in respect of the petitioners in C.C.No.804/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Chikmagalur.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners were the office bearers of Chikamagalur KPTCL Employees Union from the year 1994-1997. During the General body meeting held on 15.03.2004 they passed a resolution containing defamatory imputations against the respondent. The said resolution was displayed in the notice board. Contending that the said resolution and the publication thereof has maligned the name of the complainant, he sought action against the petitioners by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
2. On recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and by impugned order dated 17.07.2013 issued summons to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have sought to quash the private complaint as well issuance of the summons issued to them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that none of the statement made in the resolution are false. On the other hand, a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the respondent and it was held that the complainant/respondent was a habitual drunkard and during his employment he had misbehaved with one of his co-workers. Based on these findings resolution was passed by the General body and therefore the petitioners have not committed any offence warranting prosecution under Section 500 of IPC.
4. I am unable to accept the above submissions.
The contentions of the petitioners that there was truth and justification for the petitioners to pass the said resolution, is a matter for evidence, which could be decided only during the course of trial. As the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the contents of the sworn statement and contents of the resolution, which prima-facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 500 of IPC, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.
For the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek for their discharge on such grounds available under law before the trial Court, in which event the trial Court shall consider the prayer without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
Sd/- JUDGE SV