- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7653 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. K.N. SHANTH KUMAR PRAJAVANI, EDITORIAL OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR, YENEPOYA CHAMBERS, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 002 2. MR. G.S. MURALIDHARA, THE PRAJAVANI, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, THE PRINTER (MYSORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.399, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANGALORE - 575 011 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. C.R. SRINIVAS SON OF LATE RUDRAIH BHARATH RICE MILL ROAD, KOPPA, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.G. KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER C.C.NO.343/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT KOPPA. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.343/2017 (arising out of PCR No.140/2015), on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa, for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent as complainant has filed the private complaint in PCR No.140/2015 before the Trial Court against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. It is the contention of the complainant-respondent before the Trial Court that the petitioners being the Editor and Printer-Publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily news paper, published an article as per Annexure-B on 16.09.2015 alleging that the complainant has encroached a portion of the lake and thereby, defamed the complainant in the eyes of general - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 public. Even though legal notice was issued, the petitioners have not replied to the same and therefore, requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offences and to initiate legal action. The Trial Court recorded sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offences as per the order dated 25.07.2017 produced as per Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. Heard Sri. Arun Kumar, learned senior advocate for Sri. M.V.Sundararaman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M.G. Kantharajappa, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the private complaint are the Editor and Printer-Publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily news paper. The news article is published as per Annexure-B on 16.09.2015. It was not an opinion expressed by the petitioners, but it is a report based on the representation submitted by the villagers to the Deputy Commissioner and other Revenue Officials alleging - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 encroachment of the lake and public property by the complainant. There is reference to the stand taken by the complainant regarding allegations made by the villagers which is also reported in the news report dated 16.09.2015. The representation submitted by the villagers to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru is produced as per Annexure-D and on the basis of such representation, the officials have taken action and during March 2016, the encroachment was removed. Such removal of encroachment by the officials is also reported by the petitioner on 13.03.2016, which is produced as per Annexure-C. Even though sworn statement of the complainant was recorded much later, he has never referred to Annexure-C, regarding removal of encroachment, which shows the intention on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint and making the Court to take cognizance of the offences. 6. Learned counsel contended that none of the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC could be invoked as the complainant has not alleged that the averments contained in the article are either false or made deliberately to defame the complainant. When an article is published based on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 representation submitted by the villagers to the Deputy Commissioner and other Revenue Officials with an intention to bring it to the notice of the general public about the encroachment made in the public place, no offence under Sections 499 and 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC could be made out. The Trial Court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance of the offence, but mechanically proceeded to pass the order as per Annexure-A. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and others Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited1 to contend that even in a Civil Case, where permanent injunction was sought, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved, the Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that the right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess and, indeed that they should exercise without any impediment. Even in a case, where the standard of proof is much lighter than the criminal case, the Court has referred to the litigation instituted only to wield immense economic power 1 (2025) 1 SCC 741 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in the important affairs of the public interest. If this decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court could be applied in the present case, the publication is a report based on the representation submitted by the villagers and no offence could be made out against the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court highlighted the arm twisting tactics that are being adopted by the complainants in filing criminal complaints only to pressurize the accused and to deter them from proceeding legally. It is also stated that even though the Court has directed the complainants to follow the procedure of filing an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate to make him responsible for the assertion, the same is not followed in the present case, which is ignored by the Trial Court while taking cognizance. In view of the above, learned counsel for 2 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 the petitioners prays for quashing the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submitted that, it is a clear case of defamation committed by the petitioners by publishing the news article, without verifying the facts. The informant has never encroached any portion of the lake. But inspite of that, the petitioners have published the news article, specifically alleging that the respondent has encroached portion of the lake, without any basis. Therefore, Sections 499 and 500 of IPC are clearly attracted to the facts of the case and prays for dismissal of the petition 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 R E A S O N S 11. It is the contention of the complainant - respondent that the petitioners being Editor and Printer & Publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily newspaper, published a news article as per Annexure-B alleging that the complainant has encroached a portion of the lake and thereby, defamed the complainant in the eyes of the general public. Annexure- B is the news article said to have been published by the petitioners in the Kannada Daily Newspaper. On going through Annexure-B - news article, it clearly discloses that, the publication is based on the complaint filed by the villagers with the Deputy Commissioner, alleging encroachment of a portion of the lake by the respondent. The publication also states that the copy of complaint of the villagers was submitted to the Tahsildar, Deputy Conservator of Forest, and PDO of Bhuvanakote village Panchayat. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent clearly concedes that the villagers have indeed filed such complaint with the Deputy Commissioner and copy of which were submitted to various other Revenue Officials. The petitioners - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 being the Editor and Printer & Publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily newspaper have published the said fact of the villagers filing the complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, requesting to remove the encroachment. Under such circumstances, none of the ingredients of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC could be attracted to the facts of the case. Institution of such criminal case would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the press and media in violation of freedom of free speech and expressions. Therefore, it is to be held that initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the same is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Criminal proceedings in CC No.343/2017 (arising out of PCR No.140/2015), on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa, for the offences punishable under Sections - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7834 CRL.P No. 7653 of 2018 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioners. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH/SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15