1 Reserved on : 07.11.2024 Pronounced on : 07.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24330 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SURESH GOWDA FORMER MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA R/AT KOTEBETTA ROAD T.B.EXTENSION NAGAMANGALA TOWN MANDYA - 571 432 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.886/1, 3RD CROSS 515 COLONY, HAL 3RD STAGE NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 075. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench 2 AND: SRI N.CHALUVARAYASWAMY S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NAGAMANGALA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY R/O IJJALGHATTA VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. A. AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 11703/2022, FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC 499 IPC PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 500 IPC AND FOR REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DTD 06.04.2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT (SPL. COURT FOR TRAIL OF CASES FILED AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPs/MLAs) ORDERING FOR REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.11703 of 2022 registered for offence punishable under 499 and 500 of the IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri S A Ahmed, appearing for respondent. 3. The stage is set to 2008 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, wherein the petitioner and the respondent were opposing each other from their respective parties. The story then gets fast forwarded to the 2018 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, again the two are opposing each other. The subject issue revolves round the elections of the year 2023. The respondent is said to have won the assembly seat from Nagamangala constituency and the petitioner lost the elections. During the elections, several statements made by the petitioner against the respondent forms the fulcrum of the lis, which according to the complaint amounts to 4 ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 499 of the IPC, made penal under Section 500 of the IPC. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance for the offence, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and issues summons to the petitioner. Taking of cognizance and issuing of summons is what has driven the petitioner in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the statements made nowhere indicates that it is or it has the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence without application of mind. He would project a legal issue, which is not pleaded in the petition, that the Court which has taken cognizance is not the Court which is designated for hearing the cases of Legislators. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri S A Ahmed representing the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that perusal at the complaint and the statements made by the petitioner is on the face of it defamatory, 5 without any basis and has the capacity to lower the reputation of the respondent in the eyes of the general public. He would therefore contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean, as no case is made out by the petitioner warranting interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The case in the stage is set at the elections for the Nagamangala constituency. The respondent contests from a congress party and the petitioner against him. Respondent wins, the petitioner loses. The aftermath of the loss is the issue in the lis. Popular Kannada Daily Newspapers published the statement made by the petitioner on 16-08-2023, 17-8-2023 and 18-8-2023. Contending that the statements made were, on the face of it defamatory, as the same was carried on to every other newspaper, the respondent registers 6 a private complaint in PCR No.11642 of 2023. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, takes cognizance and issues summons to the petitioner. Whether the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are met for it to become an offence under Section 500 of the IPC is what is required to be noticed. Sections 499 and 500 read as follows: “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.” 7 First Exception—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception—Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.— It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting 8 the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.— It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised per-son.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. 500. Punishment for defamation.—Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 9 Section 499 of the IPC defines defamation and Section 500 of the IPC punishes for such defamation, for whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read makes any imputation concerning a person, intending to harm the reputation of such person. There are several exceptions to it. This becomes penal under Section 500 of the IPC. 8. The issue now would be, whether the statements made by the petitioner, as appeared on the print media, on 16-08-2023, 17-08-2023 and 18-08-23 are defamatory or otherwise, as obtaining in Section 499 of the IPC? The statements made are as follows: “11) (A) The popular Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Udayavani published dated 18.8.2023 carried the statement of the accused which reads thus "ಸವ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ರುದ ಏಕವಚನದೇ ಾಾ ನೆದರು: "ಭ ಾ!ಚರದ" ಕೃ$ ಸವ ಎ&.ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನ )ೕಡ+ೇಕು ಇದುವೆಗೂ 300 /ಂದ 400 1ೋ2 ®Æn 3ೊೆ45ಾ6ೆ. 1ಾಂೆ7 ಸ1ಾ8ರ ಭ ಾ!9ಾರ :ಾ; ಹಣವನು> ಏ? "ಘ>:ಾಡುAB5ೆ. ಾಜDವ6ೆ>ೕ ಲೂ2 3ೊೆಯುAB5ಾೆ ವಾ8ವEೆಯ" ರೂ. 150 1ೋ2, ಜಲFಾೆ Gೕಜ6ೆ ರೂ.100 1ೋ2 ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳ ಬ ಲೂ2 3ೊೆ45ಾ6ೆ ೋಕಸLೆ ಚು6ಾವEೆೆ 1ಾಂೆ7 ಪN1ೆO ಕ6ಾ8ಟಕ4ಂದ ಪಂQ 3ೋಗುAB5ೆ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ ¨ÉæöÊ& ªÀiÁå¦AUï ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÀPÀÄÌ J¯Éè°è JµÉÖµÀÄÖ wA¢zÁÝ£É UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¸ËºÁzÀð PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnÃªï ¸ÉÆøÉÊn EzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ PÁAUÉæ¸ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀ AiÀÄĪÀ CzsÀåPÀë£ÁzÁÝVzÉ. C°è ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä JµÀÄë ¨ÁèPï ªÀĤ JµÀÄë ªÉÊmï ªÀĤ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É? JA§ÄzÉ®èªÀÇ DZÉ §gÀ°zÉ. ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ PÁæ¸ï£À°è ¥ÉAmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï :ಾ"ೕಕರ ಹABರ ಎಷು! ಕೆN& :ಾ;B5ಾ6ೆ J®èªÀÇ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄeɹÖPï£À°ègÀĪÀ PÉÆÃD¥ÀgÉÃnÃªï ¸ÉƸÉÊn ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀÄ ¨ÁèPï ªÀĤ ºÉÃUÉ ªÉÊmï ªÀĤ 10 DUÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀ°zÉ... .... ...ZɮĪÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«ÄUÀÆ ¨ÉæöÊ£ï ªÀiÁå¦AUï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ J®èªÀÇ w½AiÀÄ°zÉ.. .. .. ..” Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-B. (B) The popular Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Kannadaprabha published dated 17.8.2023 carried the statement of the accused which reads thus “¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀzÀ°è PÀȶ ¸ÀaªÀ ¹.DgÀ.J¸ï. ¥sÀ¸ïÖ: ¨sÀæµÁÖZÀgÀzÀ°è PÀȶ ¸ÀaªÀ ಎ7.ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನದ"5ಾೆ. ಸು:ಾರು 300 /ಂದ 400 1ೋ2 ರೂTಾU ಲೂ2 3ೊೆ45ಾ6ೆ". . 1ಾಂೆ7 ಸ1ಾ8ರ ಭ ಾ!9ಾರ :ಾ; ದುಡVನು> ಏ?°W! :ಾಡುAB5ೆ.. - ಈ ಸ1ಾ8ರ ಭಷ! ಹಣವನು> ಏ? "W! :ಾಡುAB5ೆ. ಸ1ಾ8ರದ ಸವರು ಾಜDವ6ೆ>ೕ: ಲೂ2 3ೊೆಯುAB5ಾೆ. ಭ ಾ!9ಾರದ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನದ"5ಾೆ. . . .EªÀgÀÄ PÀrªÉÄ ಎಂದರೂ ಇ"ಯವೆೆ 300-400 1ೋ2 ಲೂ2 3ೊೆ45ಾ6ೆ. . . .YಾನZಫ?ನ" gÀÆ.150 PÉÆÃn, d®zsÁgÉ AiÉÆÃd£É gÀÆ.100 PÉÆÃn £ÀAvÉ ®Æn ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. gÀÆ.100 1ೋ2ಗಳನು> ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಒಬ]ೇ :ಾ;5ಾೆ. . . . ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀȶ ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳ^ ಪತ ಬೆ4ದು ಸತD . . . . ¨ÉæöÊ£ï ªÀiÁå¦AUï ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ :ಾ;ದೆ ಎೆ" JµÉëµÀÄÖ wA¢zÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ. . . . 1ಾಂೆ7 ಪNದ ಯುವ ಅಧDNನ ೌ3ಾದ8 1ೋ- ಅಪೇ2b ೊ ೈ2 +ೆಂಗಳd/ನ"ದು, ಇ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಎಷು! +ಾe ಮ) ೈg ಮ) :ಾ;5ಾ6ೆ ಎಂಬುದು AಯುತB5ೆ. . . . +ೆಳdhರು PÁæ7 ನ" TೆYೋi ಬಂe :ಾ"ೕಕರ ಬ ಎಷು! ಕೆN& :ಾ;B5ಾ6ೆ. Aಂದವನು ಕಕOೇ +ೇಕು ಎಲ ಮುಂ5ೆ ೊjಾBಗುತB5ೆ' ಎಂದು ವ Jಕವಚನದೇ ಸವರ ರುದ ಆ1ೋಶ ವDಕBಪ;ದರು." Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-C. (C) The popular Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Vijaya karnataka published dated 17.8.2023 carried the statement of the accused which reads thus: "ೋಕಸLೆ ಎೆmೆ&ೆ ಾಜDದ ಹಣ: ಆೋಪ: 1ಾಂೆ7 ಭ ಾ!9ಾರ :ಾ; ದುಡುV ಏ? "W! : ªÀiÁf ±Á¸ÀPÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñïUËqÀ. . . . ¨sÁæµÁÖZÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀaªÀ ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä ªÉÆzÀ® ಾ(ನದ"5ಾೆ. . . . ಸವ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ CªÀjUÉ ¨ÉæöÊ£ï ªÀiÁå¦AUï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ಬಯಾಗುತB5ೆ. 3ೆಚುn AಂದªÀನು> ಕಕOೇ +ೇಕು E®è ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀaªÀ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ರುದ ಕೃ$ ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳ^ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå. . . DzÀgÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ºÉÆÃmɯï MAzÀPÉÌ PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É MvÀÛqÀ ºÉÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. vÁªÀÅ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢®è JAzÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÉà ºÉý¸À¯ÁVzÉ. . ..” Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-D. 11 (D) The popular Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Andolana published dated 18.8.2023 carried the statement of the accused which reads thus: "ವಾ8ವEೆಯ" 150 1ೋ2 ರೂ ಲೂ2 ಸವ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ರುದ ಸುೇoೌಡ ಾಾ: "ಕೃ$ ಸದ ಎ&.ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ 1ೋYಾDಂತರ ರೂಗಳ ಲೂ2 3ೊೆ45ಾೆ. ಭ ಾ!9ಾರದ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನ 1ೊಡ+ೇಕು. . . . PÀȶ ¸ÀaªÀ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಅವರು ವಾ8ವEೆಯ" 150 1ೋ2 ರೂ, ಅI1ಾ/ಗಂದ 1ೋ2 1ೋ2 ಲೂ2 :ಾ;5ಾೆ. ಎಷು! +ಾe ಮ) ೈg :ಾ;5ಾೆ ೊjಾB? ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ ¨ÉæöÊ& :ಾDpಂq :ಾಡ+ೇ;, ಎೆ" ಎ ೆ!ಷು! Aಂ45ಾೆ ೊjಾBಗುತB5ೆ . . . .+ೆಂಗಳd/ನ" ೌ3ಾದ8 1ೋ-ಆಪೇ2b ೊ ೈ2 ಇ5ೆ. 1ಾಂೆ7 ಪNದ ಯುವ ಅಧDNನದು, ಅ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಎಷು! +ಾe ಮ) ಮ) ೈg ಮ) :ಾ;5ಾೆ. ಅೆಲವr 3ೊರೆ ಬರುತB5ೆ. +ೆಳdhರು PÁæ7ನ" TೆYೋi +ಾDಂe :ಾ"ೕಕರ ಹABರ ಎಷು! ಕೆN& :ಾ;B5ಾೆ." Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-E. (E) The popular Kannada local Daily Newspaper at Mandya by name Madhura Mandya published dated 16.8.2023 the statement of the accused which reads thus: “ZÉಲುವಾಯ ಾ :ಾಟ ಮಂತ :ಾ; ಾB6ೆ - :ಾt uಾಸಕ ಸುೇoೌಡ ಾಾ : ಸವ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ :ಾಟ ಮಂತ :ಾ;ಸುjಾB6ೆ. ಸತDವನು> ಸುಳ^h ಸುಳ^h ಎಂದು ಹತುB +ಾ/ 3ೇ ಸುಳ^h :ಾಡುjಾB6ೆ. ಸವ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಅದೃಷ! 9ೆ6ಾ>v5ೆ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ೆ5ಾಗ¯Éಲ ದುಡುV :ಾಡುjಾB6ೆ. . . .ಭ ಾ!9ಾರದ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನ . . . . C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è 150 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ. d¯zsÁgÉ AiÉÆÃd£É 100 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ., C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À §½ ಲೂ2 xೕೆ 300 1ೋ2 ರೂ.ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಒಬ]6ೇ ಲೂ2 :ಾ;5ಾ6ೆ. ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ ¨ÉæöÊ& :ಾDpಂq :ಾಡ+ೇಕು. ಎೆ" ಎನ>ನು Aಂ45ಾ6ೆ ೊjಾBಗುತB5ೆ. 1ಾಂೆ7 ಪNದ ಯುವ ಅಧDNನzÀÄÝ +ೆಂಗಳd/ನ" ೌºÁzÀð PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnÃªï ¸ÉƸÉÊn EzÉ C°è ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä JµÀÄÖ ¨ÁèPï ªÀĤ ªÀĤ ªÉÊmï ªÀĤ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É CzÉ®èªÀÇ DZÉ ಬರುತB5ೆ. ಇ.; ಕಣುy zಡ"5ೆ. . . ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ PÁæ¸ï£À°è ¥ÀmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£À ºÀwÛgÀ Jಷುy ಕೆN& :ಾ;B5ಾ6ೆ ಎಲವr ಜನ/ೆ ೊAB5ೆ. wAzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ಕಕOೇ +ೇಕು C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀzÀÄÝ ¸ÀvÀå ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À 37 PÉæ¸ÉAmï ºÉÆÃmɯïUÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ MvÀÛqÀ ºÉÃjzÁÝgÉ..” Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-F. (F) The popular Kannada State Daily Newspaper by name Udayakala coloumn Rajya News published dated 17.8.2023 the statement of the accused which reads thus: 12 “¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀzÀ°è ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ £ÀA.1. . . EªÀgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è 150 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ., d®zsÁgÉ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è 100 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ., C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À §½ ®Æn »ÃUÉ 300 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ., ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä M§âgÉ ®Æn ºÉÆqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ. . . ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«ÄUÉ ¨ÉæöÊ& :ಾDpಂq :ಾಡ+ೇಕು, ಆಗ ಎೆ" ಎ ೆ!ಷು! Aಂ45ಾೆ ೊತಗುತB5ೆ. 1ಾಂೆ7 ಪNದ ಯುವ ಅಧDNರರು +ೆಂಗಳd/ನ" ೌ3ಾದ8 1ೋ-ಆಪೇ2ೕb ೊ ೈ2 ಇ5ೆ. ಅ" ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ ಎಷು! +ಾe ಮ) ೈg ಮ) :ಾ;5ಾೆ?ಆೆಲವr ಆ9ೆ ಬರುತB5ೆ. . . .+ೆಳdhರು 1ಾ7 ನ" TೆYೋi ಬಂe :ಾ"ೕಕರ ಹABರ ಎಷು! ಕೆN& :ಾಡುAB5ಾೆ ಎಲವr ಜನ/ೆ ೊjಾBಗ". . . Aಂದವರು ಕಕOೇ +ೇಕು. ಮುಂ5ೆ ಎಲ ೊjಾBಗುjೆB . . . ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳ^ ಪತ ಬೆದದು ಸತD. +ೆಂಗಳd/ನ 3ೋYೆ¯ïೆ ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳನು> ಕೆ1ೊಂಡು ಒತBಡ 3ೇ/5ಾೆ . . .ಎಲ zv ಭದjೆ :ಾ;1ೊಂಡು ಅI1ಾ/ಗಳ^ ಪತ ಬೆ4ಲ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ^h 3ೇ5ಾೆ.". Copy of newspaper report is produced herewith as Annexure-G (G) The popular Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Vardhamana published dated 17.8.2023 the statement of the accused which reads thus: “3 wAUÀ¼À°è 300 PÉÆÃn ®Æn - ¸ÀaªÀ ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁf ±Á¸ÀPÀ ಸುೇoೌಡ ಆೋ¥À: “ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À°è 300 jAzÀ 400 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ. ®Æn ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁf ±Á¸ÀPÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñï UËqÀ DgÉÆæ¹zÁÝgÉ. . . ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀzÀ°è ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«ÄUÉ 'ದಲ ಾ(ನ. . . . C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ zÀAzsɬÄAzÀ 150 PÉÆÃn, d®zsÁgÉ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è 100 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ 300 jAzÀ 400 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ.M§â£Éà ಲೂ2 3ೊೆ45ಾ6ೆ. . . .ಆದೆ ಈ ಸ1ಾ8ರ ಭಷ! ಹಣವನು> ಏ?"W! :ಾಡುAB5ೆ. ಇವರು ಇ;ೕ ಾಜDವ6ೆ>ೕ ಲೂ2 3ೊ;ಯುAB5ಾೆ ಚಲುವಾಯ ಾೆ ¨ÉæöÊ& :ಾDpಂq ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, J¯Éè°è JµÉëµÀÄÖ wA¢zÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. . . ¨ÉAUÀÆj£À°è PÁAUÉæ¸ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀ AiÀÄĪÀ ಅಧDNನ ೌ3ಾದ8 1ೋ-ಅಪೇ2ೕb ೊ ೈ2 ಇ5ೆ. C°è ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä JµÀÄÖ ¨ÁèPï ªÀĤ ªÉÊmï ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É? CzÉ®èªÀÇ DZÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. . . . ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ PÁæ¸ï£À°è ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ JµÀÄÖ PÀ¯ÉPÀë£ï ªÀiÁrÛzÁݣɔ J®èªÀÇ d£ÀjUÉ UÉÆwÛzÉ. . . .wAzÀªÀ£ÀÄ PÀPÀ̯Éà ¨ÉÃPÀÄ J®è ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀvÀå. ¨ÉA¼ÀÆj£À 37 PÉæ¸ÉAmï ºÉÆÃmɯï UÉ C¢üPÀjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ MvÀÛqÀ ºÉÃjzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉýzÁÝgÉ, ªÀiÁl – ªÀÄAvÀæzÀ ZÀl”. .. .¸ÀaªÀ ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«ÄUÉ ªÀiÁl, ªÀÄAvÀæ ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ ZÀl«zÉ. ¸ÀļÀî£ÀÄß ºÀvÀÄÛ ¨Áj ºÉý ¸ÀvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É.”” 13 The afore-quoted are the statements said to have been made by the petitioner, which appears in the afore-quoted different print media on different dates. In the considered view of the Court, the statements made are per se defamatory albeit, prima facie. It definitely meets the ingredients and not the exceptions to those ingredients, again prima facie. If these statements cannot be said to be defamatory which requires a full-blown trial for the petitioner to come out clean, I fail to understand, what else can be. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of summons read as follows: “REASONS 09. Point No.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that he is a person with great reputation in the society and the Accused with the intention of defaming the reputation of the Complainant has given a false statement against the Complainant and the said statement given by the Accused is published in various New Papers having wide publication all over India. 10. The Complainant in the complaint and also in his Sworn Statement has stated that the Accused has made a Defamatory Statement against him. As already stated, the Complainant has alleged the commission of the offence under section 499 of I.PC., which is punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. On going through the complaint averments and the Sworn Statement of the Complainant, prima-facie, it goes to show that the Complainant is defamed. 11. In support of the said Sworn Statement, the Complainant has produced Newspapers Reports in Udayavani 14 dated 18-08-2023, Andolana dated: 18-08-2023, Kannada prabha dated:17-08-2023, Mudhura Mandya dated 16-08- 2023. Kannadaprabha dated:17-08- 2023, Udayakala, dated 17-08-2023 and Varthamana dated:17-08-2023 which are marked as Ex.C.01 to 07 and relevant portions which are marked as Ex.C.01(a) to Ex.C.07(a). On going through the contents of the said documents, it is found that they prima- facie support the version of the Complainant. 12. The offence of defamation is defined under section 499 of IP.C., which reads 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 expected, 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". 15 13. A meaningful reading of the above provisions, along with the complaint averments. Sworn Statement of the Complainant and the documents produced, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused and that the material brought on record as a result of inquiry under section 200 of Cr.P.C., prima- facie constitutes valid evidence which, if believed and un-rebutted at the trial would result in conviction. 14. It is well settled principle of law that before ordering for issuance of process against the Accused, the Court has to decide whether prima-facie case is made out or not on the basis of the materials placed before it. Before exercising power under section 204 Cr.P.C., is the duty of the court to see that, whether the Complainant has made out sufficient grounds for issuance of process. In the decision reported in - AIR 2010 S.C. 2261" (Shivjee Sing -Vs-Narendra Tiwari), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that. the expression "sufficient ground” used in section 203, 204 and 209 of CrPC., means satisfaction that, a prima-facie case is made out against the person Accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. 15. In another decision reported in AIR 2014 S.C. 957 (Fiona Shrikhande -Vs- State of Maharashtra), it is observed that - at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the Accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate of esquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. 16. Thus, in the light of the rulings referred supra, on an overall appreciation of the facts of the case, material placed before the court and also law applicable, this Court is of the considered opinion the Complainant has made out sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Accused for the offence under section 499 of I.P.C., which is punishable under section 500 of I.P.C and thereby made out the grounds for issuance of summons for attendance of the Accused before 16 this court. In the result, I answer Point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE. 17. Point No.2:- For the reasons assigned and the findings given on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Office to register Criminal case against the Accused for the offence under section 499 of I.P.C., punishable under section 500 of I.P.C., in Register No.III and issue summons to the Accused through jurisdictional Police, if Sub-section 3 and 4 of section 204 of Cr.P.C. are complied. (Typed by me directly on the computer corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 06th day of April-2024). (PREETH. J) XLII Addl. C.M.M.. (Spl. Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MP/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)” Learned counsel for petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the fact that the order of the learned Magistrate suffers from want of application of mind. This contention is noted only to be rejected, as a perusal at the afore-quoted order passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint, bears application of mind and is a product of cogent reasoning. 9. The other submission that is made is that the Court which has taken cognizance is not the Court constituted in terms of the 17 order of the Apex Court or the notification of the State Government constituting a special Court. The notification constituted two Special Courts one, the learned Magistrate and other, the Court of Sessions. The order of cognizance is taken by the Court of Magistrate constituted to try the cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs. Therefore, the said submission is also noted to be rejected. Therefore, the matter requires trial. The petition being meritless, should necessarily meet its dismissal. It so does and is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved. bkp CT:SS _________sd/-_____________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA