Sri.Sathish U Pai vs Sri.D.Ishwara Bhat S/O D.Krishna Bhat on 15 September, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Sathish U Pai vs Sri.D.Ishwara Bhat S/O D.Krishna Bhat on 15 September, 2010

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY or SEPTEMBER,'e'Q'_O.10
BEFORE  "t

TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.j%$REENi*JAeStE"€§ewB;A' Vt 

Criminal Petition Neg, 2:35.21 as

Between

1. Sri. Sathish U Pal' ,
Major, .   .
Managing Director,  _   iv  _ * 
Manipai Media Network Ltd:,  " V  
Udayavani Building'; ' "  ' . 

Press Com'e;,_.'- ._  
Mampal        V

2. Manipai vM'r:d=.i;}1"Net _WQ1'k Ltd. ,
Printer 8: Pub1ishe.r;'~'.Udayava.ni'
By itse01m1er/Managing Director-
Mr. satmksh  Pat,"
,_.%Adu}t, " ¢ V
~ Father--'s nameiiot known,

A A * -. _ UC1Aa3ra1{a'ni_ Bldg;

 -  ~etMan;pa1g-'e576 104.

 T.  Corrljer,

 Petitioners

  my sri..z=§ Amanda Shetty, Adv.)

%    D. Ishwara Bhat,



Age : 51 years.

S/O D.Krishr1a Bhat.

R/o. IS' ﬂoor, Jayavarma Centre.
Kadri Mallikatte.

Mangalore -- 2.

    .. d p 

(By Sri. M Vishwajith Rai and K.   

This Cr1.P ﬁled U/S.482>Ct1'._P.C by the advocate for
the petitioner praying..that.i-this-. I'-Ion'b1e"C,Ou.rt may be
pleased to set aside --imp11gne.d"'«order dt.21.2.2009
passed by the JMFCéII.7  Court  ,Manga1ore, In
P.C.No.187/08  new-as  ' Criminal Complaint
C.C.No.4431/08,  t  .  r  r

Thisi'Cri_rnina1i..Pe'titioncomirigon for Admission, this
day, thep_Co"urt', rn_,ade_.thye"fo11oinri1i?g:

 

CVCORDER

5 * The the above petition have sought for

  "ofﬂ proeeediings in C. C.No.4-431/2008 pending

I  on'__ti{1eiff1ie"_ (if-JMFC (11 Court] Mangalore.

 2. ~~be;arned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits

  13': petitioner is the Managing Director of the second

' V'  _:§3etitioner's company viz. Manipal Media Network Ltd., and

&



Section 21 of IPC. Therefore he submits that taking

cognizance of the offence by dispensing reeording8.of_4:sv1\forn

statement and issuance of process against th'é"pet:-::g;,i,gg3_

who are the owner and Managing__  

Media Network Ltd., is bad in :''}awf_'_'and'fiCon.tin{1Vatioii.t_of .

proceedings against them v»'\V:¢n:,'1ld   
and it would amount,-~ to "p_:of"prochess'.iQf  and he
prays for allowing   fripuashing of further
proceedings against   if d

3.   he relied upon the
judgnient  in the case of The State of

Maharashtra Vii   Jchodhari and Others reported

  (V 55 C 29) and the decision of

  High Court in the case of Dasari

.Nafayarija 'Lilac v R.D. Bhagvandas and another

 repoaea in 1986 Cr1.L.J. 888.

  Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent»-

"lcomplainant fairly submits that the complainant cannot

%



be called as public servant and taking cognizance of the

offence by the Trial Court by dispensing  of

sworn statement is not proper and thereforc3V_:fhe"f's,u:bmits_V

that the matter may be remitted, back to'the'_';trialV'_'Court* . 

with a direction to take cognizance ofthe offence 

the private compliant in accordance"vvithulaw":.and. at this

stage proceedings ag~a.j.nst the."_'petitioners~.need not be

quashed and he prays  th'e.petition.

5. The    
T   private complaint under
Section 200  _a'gia'inst the petitioners and 4 others

before the  that an article published by

    Lfdayavani___gdai1y Newspaper dated 18-07~2006 at

 ' phage :"se_defamatory statements carrying imputation

to its readjeri' as well as to a common man knowing him

 therebyjtbey have committed an offence. The trial Court

 passed an order on 4.11.2008 stating that since the

  M bomplajnt is filed by a public servant in his official

F55



capacity, recording of statement is dispensed with, office is

directed to register the case as C.C No.443_1 L/V:V(}§,"§'i~.and

issued summons against the accused, aggri:eV'ed.' 

same petitioners have preferred t_his._peti_tion" . 

of further proceedings.

6. The respondent complai_ria,nt in. ':pa;:ra.':':§2 of his
complaint stated as under: 

"'I'he.1S'i accused  --be the Editor and
also the Printer and Publisher for the 2116 accused, of
the Ka.r1,na5d'a_»_ Daily  i\Tewspaper"'"Udayavani' reported
to be owned' b§;,t1'iife~-,.3's'€1__ accused. The said Newspaper

has 5:.;:circ1_1lation.yin coastal Karnataka and
Kasaragod D;istrict"of Kerala amongst other places."

The   Ltd., is represented by its

owner / Abirector Mr. Sathish U. Pai who is

  as~accused'dno.3 in the complaint. A declaration

  under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Press

 Rgegisitration of Books Act, 1867 is ﬁled by accused

  ~n.o__.1.  Petitioners are neither editor nor printer nor

"'w.p'ui5lisher of an article published in Udaya Vani Kannada

2 "Daily Newspaper dated 13.8.2006.

 .

7. The case of the petitioners is clearly coveredby the decisions cited above. Therefore taking cognizgnicefééﬂofdthe offence by the trial Court and issuance of process:

the petitioners are liable to be qI;taS1'i€d«.Vf0_1' n1-ore than one 7. reason .

8. Firstly the respondent~--conip1'ainant'isnoit a public servant as defined Secondly he has not filed. capacity and taking dispensing recording of bad in law. Thirdly, the petitioners- nor editors nor publishers and they not any declaration under Sections 4, d V. 5 32'? of Registration of Books Act, 1867 and "hVas:'_1.~been filed by Accused No.1 and therefore contir1j;1at.ion of criminal proceedings against the ..petitio'ners is bad in law and would amount to abuse of "process of law.

9. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the (11 Court), Mangalore in C.C. 4431 / 2008 are hereby"0 in so far it relates to the petitione_I_fs..a_re cor"1'Cerir'_red';V. * _ 2 Vb/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court