- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201444 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: D.S. KALMAT S/O SIDDAYYA KALMAT, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE AND TAX CONSULTANT, R/O. OPP. GOVT HOSPITAL, RAICHUR ROAD, SINDHANUR-584128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.SRI.SRI. 1008 JAGADGURU SIDDALINGA MAHASWAMIGALU, UFFAINI TQ, KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR-583135. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-04-2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR IN CRL. REV. PETITION NO. 04/2022 IN DISMISSING THE SAID REVISION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 09-12-2021 Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE JMFC COURT SINDHANUR IN PC NO. 235/2015 IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 499, 500,501,502, 506 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the complainant who filed a private complaint at Sindhanur which was registered in P.C.No.235/2015 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 506 of IPC, against the respondent. 3. The allegations against the respondent is that, the respondent has circulated a massage on the social media - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 namely WatsApp, whereby he has been defamed. The said massage is extracted hereunder: “ PÀ®äoÀ JA§ÄªÀ ¯ÁAiÀÄgÀÄ Erà ¦ÃoÀzÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄlÖ ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. AiÀiÁªÀvÀÄÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ°è¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛgÉÆà DUÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁd GzÁÝgÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ”. 4. Since it is a complaint case, learned trial Judge recorded the sworn statement and documents placed on record were marked as Ex.C.1 to C.6. However, the trial Judge noted that, Ex.C.6 could not be marked as it is not admissible in evidence. Thereafter, heard the arguments put forwarded on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the complaint as no case is made out. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein filed a revision petition in Criminal R.P.No.4/2022. 6. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the revision petition by considered order dated 02.04.2024. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 8. Sri. R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the learned trial Magistrate did not understand the scope of enquiry before issue of summons when a complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and without considering the prima-facie material especially in the form of sworn statement and Ex.C.1 to C.5 (if not Ex.C.6), ought to have issued summons to the accused and dismissal of the complaint at a threshold has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the petition for further consideration. 9. Per contra, Sri. Shivanand Pattanashetti, supports the order by contending that there is a clear finding by the trial Magistrate that the material placed on record in the form of sworn statement and documents, did not make out a prima-facie case to attract the offences punishable under Section 499, 500, 501, 502 and 506 of IPC and therefore, rightly dismissed the complaint and sought for dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 10. Having heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials on record, meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, Ex.C.6 which is video clip that is said to have been circulated by the respondent is sought to be produced before the trial Magistrate without following the required procedure under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and held that Ex.C.6 is not an admissible document. 12. Further, the trial Magistrate has also taken into consideration the ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 506 of IPC and noted that, entire reading of the complaint averments as well as the documents that are placed before the Magistrate did not make out any one of the ingredients much less all the ingredients so as to summon the respondent and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 13. On reconsideration of the aforesaid material in the light of the inherent power being invoked by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court does not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3786 CRL.P No. 201444 of 2024 find any legal infirmity or perversity nor miscarriage of justice, which would entitle the petitioner to seek for further consideration of the material by admitting the petition. 14. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Admission declined; (ii) Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT:PK