- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306852019 NC: 2026:KHC:42275 CRL.P No. 7091 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7091 OF 2019 BETWEEN: J BHAGYA ANIL W/O ANIL T.J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, EDITOR, "BELAGINA VIDATHA", KANNADA DAILY NEWS PAPER, AZAAD ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ DONKENNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI H.R.SATISH S/O LATE SRI RAMANANDA. H, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, TENGINAKERE, BEGUVALLI VILLAGE, BEGUVALLI POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.15, 1ST CROSS, SIDDIVINAYAKA LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GAURAV C.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306852019 NC: 2026:KHC:42275 CRL.P No. 7091 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU DATED 19.11.2016 U/S 499 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.26051/2016 (PCR NO.6810/2016) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 500 OF IPC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 19.11.2016 directing issuance of process passed by VIII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC no.26051/2016 arising out of PCR no.6810/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), this petition is filed. 2. Sri Nataraj Donkennanavar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was accused no.1 in PCR no.6810/2016 filed by respondent (complainant) alleging commission of offence of defamation. Without raking up details of complaint in view of nature of ground urged, it was submitted that even as per cause-title in complaint, accused were residents of Thirthahalli in Shimoga District, whereas - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306852019 NC: 2026:KHC:42275 CRL.P No. 7091 of 2019 private complaint was filed at Bengaluru and though accused were beyond territorial jurisdiction of Court, without holding preliminary enquiry as mandated by Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and in violation of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaideep Bose v. M/s.Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2025 INSC 241 (Jaideep Bose's case) learned counsel submitted that order impugned as well as proceedings would be illegal and sought for quashing of same. 3. Sri Gaurav CN., learned counsel appearing for Sri S Sammith, learned counsel for respondent-complainant however opposed petition. Relying upon decisions of this Court in Crl.P no.3193/2013 disposed of on 24.04.2019 (BV Seetaram's case) and Crl.P no.201247/2024 [2025:KHC- K:3133] (Smt.Ashwini N.Kavatekar's case), it was submitted that mere violation of Section 202 of CrPC, quashment of proceedings would not be justified and matter required remand by setting aside order of issuance of process. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order as well as material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306852019 NC: 2026:KHC:42275 CRL.P No. 7091 of 2019 5. As rightly submitted, petition lies in a short compass and detailed reference to entire complaint averments and circumstances would not be necessary. It is not in dispute that both accused in private complaint filed by respondent- complainant were residents of Thirthahalli, Shimoga District and beyond jurisdiction of learned Magistrate before whom private complaint was filed. Without enquiry as mandated under Section 202 of CrPC, an order of issuance of process has been passed. Same would be violative of statute as well as ratio laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaideep Bose's case (supra). 6. Though in view of lapse of substantial period of time during pendency of proceedings, in Jaideep Bose's case (supra), entire proceedings were set at naught, specific facts in Jaideep Bose's case (supra) would reveal that party challenging proceedings was neither author or editor of newspaper but was owner. Taking note of same in light of violation of Section 202 of CrPC and lapse of time, entire proceedings were quashed. Said order being in facts and circumstances of case therein, same result would not apply to present case, which is rather similar to BV Seetaram and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306852019 NC: 2026:KHC:42275 CRL.P No. 7091 of 2019 Smt.Ashwini N.Kavatekar cases (supra). Hence, following same, I pass this: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed; (ii) Impugned order dated 19.11.2016 passed by VIII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC no.26051/2016 arising out of PCR no.6810/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC is quashed; (iii) Matter is remitted back to learned Magistrate to follow procedure under Section 202 of CrPC before passing order of issuance of process; and (iv) All contentions of both parties kept open. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18