- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100166 OF 2023 BETWEEN: BASANGOUDA S/O. SABANNA PATIL AGE. 38 YEARS OCC. ASST. TEACHER R/O. RASTRYAKRID VASATI PROUDA SHALE GURUNATH NAGAR, III STAGE ANAND NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DHARWAD DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDALINGANAGOUDA DODDEGOUDRA, A. C. CHAKALABBI AND M. A. MAKANDAR, ADVOCATES) AND: DURGAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA MECHANNAVAR AGE. 59 YEARS OCC. CHAIRMAN, PRIYADARSHINI JANSEVA SAGAR TRUST R/O. H.NO.2, GURUNATH NAGAR III STAGE, ANAND NAGAR ROAD OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DHARWAD DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRUTHVI K. S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO. 48/2023 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 499 AND 500 OF IPC IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Siddlinganagouda Doddegoudra, Sri. A.C.Chakalabhi and Sri. M.A.Makandar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pruthvi.K.S, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.48/2023 (PCR No.536/2020) on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The petitioner is accused No.2 and the respondent is the complainant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 5. The brief facts of the complainant’s case before the Trial Court are as under: The complainant filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No.536/2020 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging that on 28.06.2017, accused No.1 lodged complaint to the Hubballi Dharwad Police Commissioner making certain defamatory statement against the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed private complaint. Hence, the Trial Court after receipt of the complaint, recorded sworn statement, took cognizance and issued process against the accused. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition contending that the ingredients of offences are not attracted. The complainant has not stated anything in his sworn statement recorded by the Trial Court so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and the present case comes under exception to Section 8 of Section 499. Hence, the counsel relied upon the decision in the cases of Kishore Balkrishnanand vs. State of Maharashtra and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 another1, Karnataka Theatres Ltd. and others vs. S.Venkatesan2. 6. Learned counsel for complainant – respondent No.1 contended that accused No.1 in his complaint dated 26.04.2017 in clear terms made allegation against the chairman of Priyadarshini Janseva Trust and in the same institution, accused No.2 – petitioner has been working as a lecturer, who made allegation against the Chairman of the College, which are derogatory and without any basis. At this juncture, the petitioner disputed the question of fact which need not be gone into under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the material available on record. As per the contents of complaint, it appears that the complainant made allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that in the complaint dated 26.04.2017 submitted to Hubballi Dharwad Commissioner, accused No.1 made certain allegations against the complainant which are in the nature of derogatory and 1 2023 Live Law (SC) 602 2 (1998) 01 KAR CK 0011 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 libellous statements without any supporting or clinching proof. Hence, at this juncture the petitioner – accused No.2 challenging the process of Trial Court on the ground that in the sworn statement, the complainant has not stated that petitioner made certain derogatory, libellous statement against the complainant in his complaint dated 02.04.2017 without any supporting or clinching proof as to allegations made thereof. The counsel for petitioner contended that the allegations in the complaint is not evidenced by itself and the main ingredient of the offence must be spoken to in the sworn statement. If a party himself does not speak of the main ingredients of the offence, simple allegations to the effect in the complaint will not supplement the omission made in the course of sworn statement. 8. From the perusal of the sworn statement of complainant recorded on 02.03.2021, the complainant has stated on oath alleging that on 14.04.2017 and 26.04.2017, accused No.1 lodged false complaint against him. In this regard, his reputation has been lowered and thus, accused No.1 made a defamatory statement. The petitioner/accused No.2 drafted the content of complaint. Thus, prayed to take action - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 against accused persons. It shows that in the sworn statement, in clear terms, the complainant has stated that accused No.1 has made a defamatory statement against the complainant, and accused No.2 drafted the complaint. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sewakram Sobhani’s case at paragraphs 15 to 18 held as under: “15. The prayer in the application before the High Court was merely to quash the order dated November 30, 1977 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal and not to quash the complaint itself as the High Court has done. But, that was only a technical defect and we do not take serious notice of it in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution where we are very naturally concerned with substantial justice and not with shadow puppetry. The position now is this: The news item in the Blitz under the caption 'MISA Rape in Bhopal Jail' undoubtedly contained serious imputations against the character and conduct of the complainant. In order to attract the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the imputations must be shown to have been made (1) in good faith, and (2) for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. 'Good Faith' is defined, in a negative fashion, by Section 52, Indian Penal Code as follows: "Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'Good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention". The insistence is upon the exercise of due care and attention. Recklessness and negligence are ruled out by the very nature of the definition. The standard of care and attention must depend on the circumstances of the individual case, the nature of the imputation, the need and the opportunity for verification, the situation and context in which the imputation was made, the position of the person making the imputation, and a variety of other factors. Good faith, therefore is a matter for evidence. It is a question of fact to be decided on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. So too the question whether an imputation was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 made for the public good. In fact the 1st Exception of Section 499, Indian Penal Code expressly states "Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact". 'Public Good' like 'Good faith' is a matter for evidence and not conjecture. 16. In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab (Reported in (1965) 3 SCR 235, 244), this Court observed (at SCR p.244): “Thus, it would be clear that in deciding whether an accused person acted in good faith under the Ninth Exception, it is not possible to lay down any rigid rule or test. It would be a question to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each cas- what is the nature of the imputation made, under what circumstances did it come to be made; what is the status of the person who makes the imputation; was there any malice in his mind when he made the said imputation; did he make any enquiry before he made it; are there reasons to accept his story that he acted with due care and attention and was satisfied that the imputation was true? These and other considerations would be relevant in deciding the plea of good faith made by an accused person who claims the benefit of the Ninth Exception.” 17. Again in Chaman Lal v. The State of Punjab (Reported in (1970) 1 SCC 590) the Court said (at SCR p. 916): (SCC p.592, para 10) “In order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen first the circumstance under which the letter was written or words were uttered; secondly, whether there was any malice; thirdly, whether the appellant made any enquiry before he made the allegations; fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability that the appellant acted in good faith". Later the Court said (at SCR p. 918): (SCC p.594 para 17) "Good faith requires care and caution and prudence in the background of context and circumstances. The position of the person making the imputation will regulate the standard of care and caution". - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 18. Several questions arise for consideration if the Ninth Exception is to be applied to the facts of the present case. Was the Article published after exercising due care and attention? Did the author of the article satisfy himself that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the imputations made by him were true? Did he act with reasonable care and a sense of responsibility and propriety? Was the article based entirely on the report of the Deputy Secretary or was there any other material before the author? What steps did the author take to satisfy himself about the authenticity of the report and its contents? Were the imputations made rashly without any attempt at verification? Was the imputation the result of any personal ill will or malice which the author bore towards the complainant? Was it the result of any ill will or malice which the author bore towards the political group to which the complainant belonged? Was the article merely intended to malign and scandalise the complainant or the party to which he belonged? Was the article intended to expose the rottenness of a jail administration which permitted free sexual approaches between male and female detenus? Was the article intended to expose the despicable character of persons who were passing off as saintly leaders? Was the article merely intended to provide salacious reading material for readers who had a peculiar taste for scandals? These and several other questions may arise for consideration, depending on the stand taken by the accused at the trial and how the complainant proposes to demolish the defence. Surely the stage for deciding these questions has not arrived yet. Answers to these questions at this stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions. 'Good faith' 'public good' are, as we said, questions of fact and matters for evidence. So, the trial must go on.” 10. Further, in Prabhakaran’s case, the High Court of Kerala at paragraphs 7 and 8 has held as under: “7. Admittedly, the complainant was not a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.481 of 2000. It is alleged in the written statement that the father of the first petitioner - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 trusting the plaintiff - his sister and her husband, the complainant who was a practicing lawyer, affixed his signature wherever he was asked to sign which was misused by the complainant for creating materials to appropriate the plaint schedule properties. It can be seen that the complainant never conducted any case as alleged in the written statement filed in O.S.No.481 of 2000. Annexure-C complaint would show that the imputation now made against the complainant is susceptible to harm his reputation. The stand now taken by the petitioners is that the statements contained in the written statement can be justified by taking a defence as contemplated under the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C. Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duly of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C. Without considering the evidence to be adduced and the defence to be set up, it is not possible to come to a finding whether the statements contained in the written statement are defamatory or not. On going through Annexure-C complaint, this Court is not in a position to hold that Annexure-C complaint does not constitute the ingredients under Section 500 I.P.C. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash Annexure-C complaint. 8. The Crl. Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed.” 11. From the perusal of the facts and circumstances and material available on record and the decision cited supra, it appears that as per the complaint dated 26.04.2017, accused No.1 appears to have made certain allegations in his complaint submitted to the Police. But, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.2. Hence, prosecution of petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Further, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:868 CRL.P No. 100166 of 2023 complainant filed the present complaint alleging that accused No.1 made certain derogatory and libellous statement in his complaint, but accused No.2 has not made any specific allegation against complainant. 12. At this stage, there are no prima-facie allegations against accused No.2. If petition against accused No.2 is not quashed, it would lead to abuse of process of law. Hence, the petition filed by accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.48/2023 (PCR No.536/2020) on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1