- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6313 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED TV9 KANNADA NO.13/1, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, OPPOSITE TO HOCKEY STADIUM, BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE PRODUCER MR. VILAS NANDODKAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHARANABASAPPA MARATUR, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SVM MANSION, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SUBBANNA GARDEN, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 571 214. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (AT ANNEXURE- B) FILED BY COMPLAINT/RESPONDENT AS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.3 IN CC.NO.8442/2025 (PCR NO.9912/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S. 500 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.3 is before the Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8442/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC - defamation. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 2. Heard Sri. Santosh B.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Somashekharaiah R.P., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent is the complainant, who was an erstwhile employee of Lululemon India Pvt. Ltd., an athleisure company in the position of Senior Architect. On certain allegations of alleged sexual harassment of a co-employee, a crime comes to be registered against the respondent and others by one Smt. Shwetha Dharmappa, which becomes a crime in Crime No.110/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A and 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent along with others approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6376/2023. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court grants an interim order of stay in favour of the respondent, who was the 1st petitioner therein, on 27.07.2023. The allegation now is, after the grant of interim order or despite the grant of interim order, the picture of the respondent and the information about the respondent is aired on TV9 and is repeatedly displaying the complainant as one involved in a sexual harassment case with a co-employee. The respondent then enters into a truce with - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 the complainant, who had alleged that the respondent has indulged in acts of sexual harassment. The co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Crl.P.6373/2023, closes the proceedings by the order dated 13.03.2024, upon a settlement arrived at between the parties. In the interregnum, it transpires that the petitioner had aired the picture and other information about the present complainant is now charged with the offence of defamation by registering the complaint in PCR No.9912/2024. The concerned Court takes cognizance and registers the case as C.C.No.8442/2025. It is on the said registration, the petitioner - accused No.3 is before the Court, calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.8442/2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.M. Santosh taking this Court through the complaint would seek to contend that the contention of the respondent is that despite the grant of interim order, the news and the picture of the respondent were displayed. He would further submit that the complaint itself indicates that the respondent was not even aware of the interim order so granted and therefore, the respondent could not have sought to stop the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 broadcasting or otherwise. The learned counsel submits that the respondent - complainant except alleging this, has made no other allegations against the petitioner. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 15 SCC 443 and the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI RAJEEV CHANDRASHEKAR v. SRI. K. KOTESWAR RAO, Crl.P.101127/2015, decided on 17.02.2022. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would take this Court through the very complaint so registered to demonstrate that the picture of the respondent and the information about the respondent getting involved in the case of a sexual harassment is repeatedly displayed, which has tarnished the image and reputation of the respondent. Therefore, would submit it is a fit case for a trial against the petitioner as it is the petitioner's television channel that had aired the information despite the grant of an interim order. The learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass at this juncture. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that they have aired on the television, the electronic media the information about the complainant getting involved in a case of sexual harassment after the registration of the crime. The registration of the crime is an admitted fact. The present complainant being accused No.1 in the said case is also a matter of fact. The allegations becoming a crime in Crime No.110/2023 is an undisputed fact. The offences alleged in the crime in Crime No.110/2023 are alleged against the respondent. It is to be noticed that the termination of the crime in Crime No.110/2023 did not happen on its merit, it was settled between the parties and the settlement lead to the obliteration of the crime. The order of the co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.6376/2023 dated 13.03.2024 reads as follows: "1. Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.110/2023 pending before the Court of VII Addl. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1), 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that dispute between the parties has been settled amicably at the intervention of the well wishers and elders of both the families. They submit that the settlement is voluntary without there being any coercion or undue influence. They also submit that an application is filed by respondent No.2/de-facto complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to allow the petition and the said application is supported by the affidavit of respondent No.2. 4. Parties who are present before the Court in person are identified by their respective advocates. In paragraph Nos.3 to 6 of the affidavit of respondent No.2, which is filed in support of I.A.No.1/2024 it has been averred as follows:- "3. I submit that after having filed the aforementioned complaint, my family members and well-wishers intervened and advised me to settle / close the complaint and further advised me to withdraw and close the said complaint in accordance with law. Accordingly, based on the advice of my family members and well-wishers, I hereby express my willingness to seek for quashing of the FIR bearing no. Crime No.110 / 2023 which was submitted before the Hon'ble VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against the Petitioners offences under Sections 354, 354(A) (1) and 509 R/w Section 34 of IPC - 1860. 4. I hereby agree and confirm that all disputes in the present matter no longer exist. I have no objection for this Hon'ble court to allow this petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.110 / 2023 registered by the Respondent No.1 police, pending on the file of the Hon'ble VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against the Petitioners. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 5. I further agree not to disparage the Petitioners or act in any manner whatsoever which may damage the reputation of the Petitioners or which would adversely affect the goodwill, reputation of the Petitioners with the public generally, or with any of their patrons and client, whether existing, prospective, or otherwise. I also acknowledge and agree that I have not made nor allowed and shall not make or allow, directly or indirectly any public statement, public announcement, press release or other disclosure to the press which is related to the Petitioners in any manner. 6. I hereby acknowledge that all disputes in the present matter no longer exist, and I most respectfully pray that this petition may kindly be allowed, and the criminal proceedings be quashed." 5. Considering the fact that the dispute is private in nature and the same has been now settled between the parties at the intervention of well wishers and elders of both the parties and the parties have now decided to give a quietus to the dispute between themselves, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in I.A.No.1/2024 and also in this petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order:- 6. I.A.No.1/2024 filed by respondent No.2 is allowed. Consequently, petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.110/2023 pending before the Court of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1), 509 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed." Therefore, the closure or obliteration of Crime No. 110/2023 is on the settlement between the complainant therein, who had suffered sexual harassment and the accused, present respondent who was alleged of sexual harassment. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 8. When the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8442/2025 came to be registered, it was on the score that the channel had aired certain information about the complainant. At what time is necessary to be noticed. Even according to the complaint, the information about the respondent was aired on 31.07.2023. It is the case of the respondent that two paragraphs would cut at the root of the matter. The said paragraphs of the complaint which become germane to be noticed, are extracted hereinbelow: "37. That the Complainant submit, he has challenged the case registered by the Cubbon Park Police in Crime No.110/2023 in Crl.P. 6376/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered against the Complainant and others. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after hearing granted interim Order of Stay to the investigation as per Order dt:27/07/2023. However though the interim order was granted, for the best reasons known to my earlier advocate, have failed to inform anything about the interim order granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka nor shared any details which is exchanged between the Complainant company and the Complainant advocate and the Complainant was kept in dark. 38. That though the interim order was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. P. 6376/2023, the complainant/Accused No.2 in Crl.P. 6376/2023 intentionally deliberately by violating the interim order granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru to defame the image of - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 the Complainant and the company, on 31st July 2023, TM Shwetha Dharmappa, has gone to TV news media channels which broadcasted the defamatory and false accusations against the Complainant and others on 31st July 2023 even after HC has stayed the Police investigation in the matter ordered on 27th July 2023 in contempt of court. This has caused Complainant family and Complainant huge shock, pain, damaged the dignity and reputation hugely. The internet electronic Link/URLs for the defamatory content are as follows:" (Emphasis added) The respondent for the first time indicates that there was a criminal petition filed and in the criminal petition, there was an interim order granted. The respondent was not aware of an interim order granted. It is the candid averment in the complaint itself that the earlier advocate had not informed the respondent that there was an interim order of stay. If there was no information even to the respondent with regard to an interim order of stay, it is un-understandable as to how a channel should know that the interim order is granted by a court of law stalling the process of investigation in a case of sexual harassment. What was displayed on the television was the registration of a crime and the process of investigation. If the petition had been quashed on its merit holding that there - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 was no act of sexual harassment, it would have been an altogether different circumstance; however, it is closed by way of settlement. 9. Jurisprudence is replete with the law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts considering the ingredients of the offence of defamation. 9.1. The Apex Court in the case of AROON PURIE supra, while observing whether the exceptions under Section 499 of the IPC can be considered in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has held as follows: “…. …. …. 18. We now turn to the question : whether the benefit of any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC can be availed of and on the strength of such Exceptions, the proceedings can be quashed at the stage when an application moved under Section 482 of the Code is considered? 19. In Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar [Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar, (1998) 4 SCC 112 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 815] , the reporting made by a newspaper about the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly touching upon the issues of misappropriation of government funds meant for certain projects, was the subject-matter of complaint alleging defamation. The decision shows that the article being accurate and true reporting of the proceedings of the House, which was reported - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 in good faith in respect of conduct of public servants entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good, the protection was extended and the power under Section 482 of the Code was utilised. Para 5 of the decision is as under : (SCC p. 113) “5. It is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly. Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good. Thus the facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were published for public good. All these aspects have been overlooked by the High Court.” 20. Similarly, in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam [Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393] , a reporting made to a superior officer alleging misconduct on the part of the complainant was taken to be completely protected by Exception 8 to Section 499IPC and the proceedings were quashed. The relevant portion from para 7 of the reported decision is as under : (SCC pp. 137-38) “7. … Under such circumstances the fact that the accused persons had made a report to the superior officer of the complainant alleging that he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which is the gravamen of the present complaint and nothing more, would be covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860. By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 been made out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to face trial or even to approach the Magistrate afresh for reconsideration of the question of issuance of process would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceedings itself.” 21. It is thus clear that in a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an Exception to Section 499IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of Exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.2. The High Court of Delhi in the case of SAMIR KUMAAR MODI v. NIRMALA BAGRI1, considers whether fair reporting of the contents of an FIR would become the offence of defamation, and has held as follows: “…. …. …. E. Reporting of contents of a police complaint/FIR by news agencies viz. offence of defamation 36. Suffice it to note that the reporting of the contents of a police complaint or an FIR by news agencies has, on several occasions, been the subject of judicial consideration. Courts have repeatedly examined the extent to which reproduction of such contents can give rise to liability for defamation. 1 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4434 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 37. The High Court of Bombay, in Vijay v. Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1315, in respect of news reporters/editors reporting the contents of an FIR, has held that mere reporting of the registration of a crime or reproduction of the contents of an FIR, without distortion or embellishment, does not constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC. It was observed that registration of an FIR is a matter in the public domain and faithful reporting thereof, in exercise of the freedom of speech and expression, cannot be treated as an intentional imputation harming reputation. It was observed as under: “17. It takes me to another limb of submission. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that mere publication of registration of crime would not fall within the ambit of Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that whatever was registered in the first information report against the nonapplicant (complainant), was published in the newspaper, which cannot be termed as defamation. In order to constitute the offence of defamation, the dual requirement is to be met, that the publication must be an imputation, and secondly, there must be an intention to harm the reputation of the person. 18. It is not in dispute that at the instance of the Police report lodged by co-accused Ashok Gupta, Police of Yavatmal City Police Station registered crime No. 313 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 326, 294 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the non- applicant (complainant) and 5 others. As far as the news item is concerned, there is no allegation that the news was a distorted version or a colourable exaggeration of the First Information Report. In short, there is no dispute that the crime was registered against the complainant and the news item reflects the true gist of the allegations levelled in the report. Rather the said fact cannot be disputed since the copy of the first information report has been produced on record. The core question is whether publication or reporting of registration of crime amounts to the intentional imputation - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 of a named person. Undoubtedly, the Press has great power in impressing the minds of the people and thus it is essential that the person responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take good care before its publication. No doubt, publication of news on rumour or on hear-say information having no iota of truth is fatal to a Journalist. Herein it is not the case that first information report was not at all registered or the distorted news item was published. 19. It was thus inquired from the counsel for the nonapplicant as to how the action of reporting a news item could be said to be defamatory. It is common knowledge that in daily newspapers at least some space is devoted to the news about the registration of crimes, filing of cases in Courts, the progress of the investigation, arrest of persons, etc. It constitutes news events which public has the right to know. Certainly, the Publishers are to report the true happenings in their newspapers. I may reiterate that there is no dispute that the fact of registration of crime was correctly reported. Filing complaints about defamation on such news items are nothing but an attempt to shut up and stifle the Reporters/informants and to force them to withdraw the report filed against the persons who are allegedly defamed. No reply in this respect was forthcoming from the counsel of the non-applicant nor has anything in this respect been stated as to how the said act of Editor/Publisher gives rise to the action for libel. If it was held so then no reporting of news could be made till the final outcome of the investigation or the final orders of the last Court. It would deprive the rights of the public to know the happenings. 20. It is the primary function of the Press to provide comprehensive and correct information, especially when it is brought into the public domain. Freedom of the Press is implied from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 the Constitution of India. In other words, the freedom of making a true report regarding the affairs which are in the public domain is a right, which flows from the freedom of speech. The action of defamation about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic setup. 21. Registration of a crime is no longer a private affair. The Supreme Court in case of Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 691 has directed that the copies of the First Information Report (barring cases of sensitive nature) shall be uploaded on the website meaning thereby the registration of the first information report falls in the public domain. *** 24. The tenor of the entire private complaint is that the allegations levelled in the Police report qua complainant Ravindra are totally false. In the complaint of defamation, he pleaded that on the date of the alleged occurrence, he was not present rather he was elsewhere on duty. It is alleged that the publisher of the newspaper without verifying the truthfulness of the news, had published the news item, amounting to defamation. The complaint also bears reference that complainant has been excluded while filing the charge sheet, perhaps under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a matter of fact, the news item was published within three days from the registration of the crime, therefore, subsequent exclusion from the charge sheet has no bearing at all. Moreover, the news item was based on the true facts i.e. about the registration of crime at the Police Station. The responsibility of the Editor is to publish true facts and nothing else. The complaint of defamation alleges that the truthfulness of the contents of the first information report are not verified. The publisher is not expected to investigate the matter and ascertain the truthfulness of the - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 first information report before publishing the news item. The liability and responsibility of the Editor are restricted to a limited extent therefore, the contention in that regard is not acceptable.” 38. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in Mahadev I. Todale v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9135, while giving relief to the investigating officer of a case, who had been arrayed as defendant in a suit for defamation filed for reporting of police complaints and FIR in news channels, held that reporting of police complaints or FIRs, and the progress of investigation does not give rise to cause of action for defamation, so long as the criminal proceedings are pending and the allegations remain unadjudicated. The Court also cautioned against using defamation proceedings as a counter-blast to stifle or derail criminal proceedings lawfully set in motion. It was held as under: “12. I have at the outset enquired from the counsel for Respondent 1/plaintiff as to how Respondent 1/plaintiff can maintain a suit for damages for defamation qua what has transpired during the investigation of the FIR and in Court in pursuance thereto, when the outcome of the prosecution is not known as yet. 13. This Court in Shri Ram Singh Batra v. Smt Sharan Premi, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 940 : (2006) 133 DLT 126 also was concerned with a suit for recovery of damages for defamation by publication in the newspapers of the FIR registered against the plaintiff therein and arrest of the plaintiff therein. It was pleaded that the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered was false. It was found that the process of criminal law was still on and the plaintiff had not been acquitted or discharged. It was held (i) that malicious prosecution is actionable as a tort but mere presentation of a false complaint which first seeks to set the criminal law in motion will not furnish an action for damages for malicious prosecution; (ii) that till the - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 plaintiff obtains an order of acquittal or discharge in his favour, no cause of action to file a suit against the defendant on the tort of malicious prosecution accrues; (iii) that the newspaper reports of registration of FIR against the plaintiff and disclosing the nature of offence alleged of the plaintiff and of arrest of the plaintiff are also not actionable; (iv) that till it is established that the FIR in question is based on a false allegation, no action is found maintainable on the newspaper reports; (v) that till the investigation is on, there can be no cause of action. Accordingly, the plaint in the suit was rejected. ….. ….. ….. 18. However the said averments in para 2 of the plaint are in the context of the plea therein of no notice under Section 80 CPC being required to be served on the petitioner/defendant and no permission from the State Government under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for prosecuting the petitioner/defendant being required. Else, Respondent 1/plaintiff in para 21 of the plaint, qua the petitioner/defendant has merely pleaded that the petitioner/defendant has prejudged the entire issue and has given false and unsubstantiated information to the newspapers and that the said illegal act of the petitioner/defendant has not been done in discharge of his official duty. Respondent 1/plaintiff in this regard, in paras 21 & 22 of the plaint, has reproduced the following passages from the newspaper articles:…… 19. It is thus not the plea of Respondent 1/plaintiff that the information which the petitioner/defendant is attributed to have supplied to the newspapers is beyond the contents of the FIR or is contrary to the investigation carried out till then.” 39. Similarly, in Primero Skill & Training Pvt. Ltd. v. Selima Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7619, the coordinate Bench of this Court reiterated that statements made in police - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 complaints and FIRs, and their faithful reporting by the media, do not give rise to a cause of action for defamation. The Court held that once the contents of an FIR fall within the public domain, particularly in view of the directions of the Supreme Court mandating publication of FIRs, neither the complainant nor the publisher can be proceeded against for defamation merely for reproducing such contents. “13. Having given further thought to the matter, I remain of the same view as on the day when the suit had come up for admission, that this suit does not deserve to be entertained and deserves to be thrown out at the threshold to save the defendants, who do not appear to be persons with much monetary means, from travelling to Delhi, engaging an Advocate, appearing and contesting this suit at Delhi. 14. My reasons therefor are as under: (a) Supreme Court, in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 691, concerned with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and while issuing guidelines/directions for supply of copy of FIR has inter alia directed that the copies of the FIR (unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and such other offences) should, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the FIR, be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website on the official website of the State Government so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court for redressal of his grievances and that the decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a person holding equivalent post. (b) As per the law aforesaid declared by the Supreme Court, the contents of FIR, - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 irrespective of whether published in a newspaper as a news event or not, are in public domain. Once the Police itself, as per law declared by the Supreme Court is required to publish the FIR, I fail to see how Defendants 1 to 6 as editor/publisher of the newspaper or Defendant 7 as complainant, can be proceeded against in an action for defamation for publishing the contents thereof. ….. ….. ….. (f) Subsequently, in Anjana Saikia (Das) v. Anuradha Das, 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 321 it was held that though an action for defamation by statement in the FIR would lie but only after the FIR case was decided. Similarly, in Mahavir Singh v. Surinder Singh, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 9094 also it was held that mere lodging of the FIR, though it may contain false imputation, does not amount to defaming the person against whom FIR is lodged. To the same effect is Kamlesh Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh, 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 920. ….. ….. ….. (r) Mention may lastly be made of my judgment in Veer Arjun newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Bahori Lal, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 5096 wherein following the aforesaid law it was held that reporting of contents of a complaint is privileged and does not invite a claim for defamation. (s) Supreme Court recently in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 was concerned with a challenge to the vires of Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 constituting defamation as defined therein as an offence, on the ground of the same being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Negativing the challenge, Supreme Court held (i) that while in a democracy, an individual has a right to criticize and dissent but his right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and he cannot defame another person as that would offend the victim's - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 fundamental right to reputation which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and one fundamental right cannot be given higher status in comparison to the other and what is required is proper balancing of the two and harmonious construction in light of objective of fraternity and fundamental duties envisaged under Article 51A(e) and (j) of the Constitution; (ii) that Article 19(2) envisages “reasonable restrictions”; right to say what may displease or annoy others cannot be throttled; (iii) that there can be no cavil that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a right that has to get ascendance in a democratic body polity but at the same time the limit has to be “proportionate” and not unlimited; (iv) that the restrictions should not be excessive and should be in public interest; (v) the test of reasonableness cannot be determined by laying down any abstract standard or general pattern—it would depend upon the nature of the right which has been infringed or sought to be infringed and the ultimate impact i.e. the effect on the right has to be determined; (vi) that the principles of proportionality of restraint are to be kept in mind by the Court. (t) Notice may also be taken of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 449 : (2015) 1 ITCC 1 which was concerned with the challenge to the vires of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the ground of being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It was held (a) that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression requires free flow of opinion and ideas and an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance and the culture of open dialogue is generally of great societal importance and the ultimate truth is evolved by free trade in ideas in a competitive marketplace of ideas; (b) that it is only beyond a certain threshold that Article 19(2) is kicked in; and (c) that wider reach and range of circulation over internet cannot justify restriction of freedom of speech and expression on that ground alone and that virtues of electronic media cannot become its enemies. - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 (u) Applying the tests aforesaid also, no cause of action in favour of plaintiff or against any of defendants is disclosed…” (Emphasis added) 40. Therefore, it is well-settled that reporting of the contents of an FIR, without embellishment, distortion, or addition, cannot be covered under the definition of defamation under law. (Emphasis supplied) If the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Delhi are pitted against the facts obtaining in the case at hand, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no fault can be found with the petitioner's channel, which aired the said news, as it was a matter of record. The registration of a crime is a public document, and the filing of the petition or grant of an interim order was admittedly not known to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of permitting further trial in the case at hand against the petitioner solely on the narration of the complaint itself as is indicated hereinabove. The petition thus succeeds. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289772025 NC: 2026:KHC:39394 CRL.P No. 6313 of 2025 (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.8442/2025 (PCR No.9912/2024) pending before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5