Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa S/O Tippanna Sunagar And Ors vs Basavaraj S/O Siddappa Saragaon on 7 August, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15148/2013
Between:
1. Sharanappa S/o Tippanna Sunagar
District Congress President
Age: 55 years, Occ: Business
R/o Sunagar Complex
Tippu Sultan Chowk, Jewargi Road
Taluk: Sindagi
District: Bijapur
2. Jyotiram Pawar
Age: 70 years Occ: Agriculture
R/o Dobale Galli
Bijapur
3. Vaijanath Karpoormath
Age: 58 years, Occ: Business
R/o Manjunath Nagar
Jail Road, Bijapur
4. Narayan S/o Revansiddappa Panchal
Age: 50 years, Occ: Private Service
R/o Jorapur Peth, Bijapur
5. Chandsab S/o Shahsab Gadagalav
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business
R/o Navabhag, Near Secab School
Bijapur
2
6. Hasimpeer Walikar
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kanakadas Badavane
Bijapur
7. Vasant Honamode
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o Jumma Masjid Road,
Bijapur
8. Irappa Jakkannavar
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o Jorapur Peth, Bijapur
9. Chanabasappa Nandaragi
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o Bijapur
10. Gurappa Yankanchi
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business
R/o Sindagi
11. Siddu Mallikarjunmath
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business
& Media Person Press Reporter
Tenkan Gaali, News Paper
R/o Muneshwar Nagar,
Sindagi Road, Bijapur
12. Gurusing Tonashyal
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o Station Road, Bijapur
... Petitioners
(By Sri Anil Kumar Navadagi, Advocate)
And:
Basavaraj S/o Siddappa Soragaon
Age: 47 years, Occ: Advocate
3
President, Bar Association Bijapur
R/o Bijapur
... Respondent
(By Sri Sangangouda V. Biradar, Advocate)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and quash the order
dated 13.03.2012 issuing process against the petitioners at
Annexure-C andconsequently be pleased to quash the entire
Criminal Proceedings pending as against them in
C.C.No.567/2012 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Vijayapur
and also grant such other reliefs.
This petition coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. The respondent who is a president of the Bar Association Vijayapur, has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.567/2012 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court Bijapur for the alleged offences under Section 499 & 501 of IPC on the allegation that, the petitioners have published a news item at page No.5 in Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily newspaper dated 04.03.2012, making defamatory statement against the whole community of advocates. The said allegations as quoted in 4 the complaint thus read as:
"£ÁåAiÀĪÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸À£ÀzÀÄ gÀzÀÄÝUÉƼÀ¹"
"«eÁ¥ÀÅgÀB ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¹n £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁzÀsåªÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁåAiÀĪÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqɹzÀ ºÀ¯ÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß f¯Áè PÁAUÉæ¸ï ¸À«Äw RAr¹zÀ.
f¯ÁèzÀsåPÀë ±ÀgÀt¥Àà ¸ÀitUÁgÀ, ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ eÉÆåÃwgÁªÀÄ ¥ÀªÁgï, ªÉÊd£ÁxÀ PÀ¥ÀÇðgÀªÀiÁoÀ, J£ï.Dgï.¥ÀAZÁ¼À, ZÁAzÀ¸Á§ UÀqÀUÀ¯ÁªÀ, C¥sÁÛ¨ï SÁ¢æ, ºÁ¹A¦ÃgÀ ªÁ°PÁgÀ, ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ ºÉÆ£ÀªÉÆÃqÉ, FgÀ¥Àà dPÀÌtÚªÀgÀ, ZÀ£Àߧ¸À¥Àà £ÀAzÀgÀV, UÀÄgÀ¥Àà AiÀÄAPÀAa CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÁ ºÉýPÉ ¤Ãr, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÁ¥ÁqÀĪÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁªÁ¢UÀ¼Éà ªÀiÁzÀsåªÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè £ÀqɹgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ RAqÀ¤ÃAiÀÄ. ºÀ¯Éè £ÀqɹzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §A¢ü¹ CªÀgÀ ¸À£ÀzÀÄ gÀzÀÄÝUÀÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ DUÀ滹zÁÝgÉ".
3. On careful reading of the above said news item published in the newspaper, it is clear that, by means of said notification some of the petitioners have given a paper statement, stating that; "Advocates who are responsible for maintainance of law and order, it is to be condemned, if they themselves involved in assaulting the representatives of the media, the persons who actually commit such offence shall be arrested and their sanad will have to be cancelled."
5
4. Being aggrieved by the above said allegation a private complaint came to be lodged. In order to take cognizance of the offence, the Court has to satisfy itself that, the allegations published in the newspaper constitute the offence under section 499 of IPC.
5. The provisions under Section 499 of IPC clearly states that:
"Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representation 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 the such person, is said, except in cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person."
Explanation four also shows that: "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 6 or causes it to be bellieved that the body of that person is in a loathsome state or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
6. Therefore, there must be imputation which should attract the provision, if it is accepted as it is, it should cause a defaming effect to a particular person or even a group of persons. Particular statement which is relied upon in this case is that "If any person commits an offence, he should be arrested, if he is an advocate his sanad has to be cancelled." There is no such imputation has been made, so as to cause any shunning effect to anybody or to a group. Over all reading of the allegations made to show that, legal action shall be taken against any person whoever commits any offence, whether he is a lawyer or anybody. Action should be taken in accordance with law and to cancel his sanad is the intention behind that statement. The said allegations cannot said to constitute any offence as such. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to order to continue the said proceedings against the accused persons.
7
7. There is no doubt that, inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised to quash the proceedings in proper case for preventing abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court has to exercise this discretionary power in each case depending upon the facts of each case and exigencies. Whether the allegation in the complaint and the first information report, if the entire allegations are taken into consideration irrespective of the disputable part, if the whole article as noted in the complaint is read, if it does not constitute any offence, the Court can quash such proceedings. If a complaint is filed by a person who is actually not an aggrieved person, the judicial act of taking cognizance in voilation of Section 199 will be an abuse of process of Court. So also taking cognizance without applying the judicious mind to see whether the allegations constitute any offence also amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore looking to the facts of each case, the Court can exercise such discretionary powers.
8. It is worth to refer a decision of Gujurat High 8 Court reported in 1984 Crl.L.J 1790 between Narottamdas L.Shah Vs. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai and another wherein the High Court has held that:
"Sections 499, 500, Lawyers described as "
Dispute Brokers" in newspaper editorial - their resorting to strike criticised - Held, editorial referred to lawyers as a class and not to individual or determinate section -- Complaint not maintainable ( Words and Phrases- "Kajia Dalal"
and "Dispute Brokers").
There was agitation of lawyers in Gujarat with respect to the appointment and transfer of Chief Justices of High Courts. On account of the agitation, the lawyers ceased to participate in Court proceeedings and resorted to "
satyagraha". An editorial in a newspaper criticised as to whether it behoves to the lawyers as a class to resort to strike. The lawyers were inter alia described as "Kajia Dalal" i.e. Dispute Brokers in editorial. A complaint for defamation was filed by a lawyer against the editor.
Held, even according to the complainant the editorial did not refer to him personally or to any other individual but referred to the lawyers as a 9 class and at the most the lawyers of Gujarat. Thus the alleged defamation could not be referred to a determinate or identifiable section/class of lawyers as distinguished from the rest of the members of lawyers' fraternity."
9. In view of the above said decision and also facts of the case, it is a well established principle of criminal law that, on over all reading of the entire allegations made in the complaint, even if the allegations are translated into the evidence, the same is not sufficient to constitute any offence or it is so vague, any prudent man, if he reads such statement, he cannot come to any conclusion that, the allegations are sufficient to constitute an offence. Therefore, if such vague allegations are available, it will be a futile attempt to continue the said proceedings in a Criminal Court.
10. In the above said circumstances, the said proceedings in my opinion, requires to be quashed. Accordingly the following order is passed. 10
ORDER Petition is allowed.
The case in C.C. No.567/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 499 and 501 of IPC pending on the file of II Additional JMFC Vijayapur and all further proceedings therein against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR