Karnataka High Court
Nanjappa B C vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29962
WP No. 8681 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.8681 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NANJAPPA B C
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE CARIAPPA,
OCC: EDITOR,
CAUVERY TIMES KANNADA DAILY
NANJARAYAPATNA VILLAGE,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234
ALSO AT
CAUVERY TIMES KANNADA DAILY,
TASS BUILDING,
NEAR UMAMAHESHWARI TEMPLE,
GONICOPPAL,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 213
2. VASANTHA K
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNA K,
Digitally signed OCC: NEWSREPORTER,
by VIDYA G R CAUVERY TIMES KANNADA DAILY
Location: CHURCH ROAD,
HIGH COURT NELLIAHUDIKERI,
OF
KARNATAKA SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 253
ALSO AT CAUVERY TIMES KANNADA
DAILY TASS BUILDING,
NEAR UMAMAHESHWARI TEMPLE,
GONICOPPAL, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 213
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHAUDAN B.R. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AIYAPPA K G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MADIKERI TOWN PS.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29962
WP No. 8681 of 2020
KODAGU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI PRAKASH T K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE KUNJAPPA,
OCC: SHIRESTADAR,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
R/O NEAR KOTEMARIAMMA TEMPLE,
PENSION LANE,
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201
3. SMT ANIS JOY KANMANI IAS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O UNKNOWN,
OCC: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KODAGU DISTRICT
IDENTITY NO.01KN111K03
R/O OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
MADIKERI,
KODAGU-571 201
4. DR SUMAN D PENNEKAR IPS
AGED UNKONWN,
D/O UNKNOWN,
OCC: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
R/O OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR FMC COLLEGE,
BHAGAVATHI NAGAR,
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R3;
SMT. ARCHANA P. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4:
R2 - SERVED)
***
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29962
WP No. 8681 of 2020
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973,
PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT TO THE R-1 POLICE, TO QUASH THE FIR
DATED 11.06.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.0036/2020 of Madikeri Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 505(1)(B), 505(2) read with Section 34 of IPC produced as per Annexure-'D' and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay compensation and damages for violation of the fundamental rights of petitioners.
2. Heard Sri Choudan B.R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Aiyappa K.G. for the petitioners, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Smt.Archana P. -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the Editor and petitioner No.2 is the News Reporter in Kannada daily newspaper, 'Cauvery Times' of Kodagu District.
4. The Shirestedar attached to the office of respondent No.3 filed the First Information against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 153, 505(1)(B), 505(2) read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. It is alleged that the petitioners have published several news items in the Kannada Daily, 'Cauvery Times', with an intention to provoke the general public and to cause riots in the District. It was done with an intention to see that the public are induced to commit offence against the District administration and to disturb the tranquility in the District.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being the media persons enjoy certain privileges and also have right to report the news to the general public. It -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 is submitted that there was no intention or malice in publishing such news items.
7. Learned counsel draws attention of the Court to various news items published in the Kannada daily newspaper 'Cauvery Times' to contend that even though there is reference to the names of Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police of Kodagu District at the relevant point of time, it was not with an intention to commit any offence as alleged. It is submitted that these news items were published during COVID 19 pandemic and it was only with an intention to create awareness amongst the general public. If it was the contention of the complainant that the news published amount to defamation, he could have recourse to law by filing a private complaint, but no such steps were taken invoking the penal provisions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Sanjeev. S v. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor1, in support of his contention that to invoke 1 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1948 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 Section 153 of IPC, the accused must commit an illegal act which was done 'malignantly' or 'wantonly' and further, the act must have been done with an intention to provoke or knowing that it will provoke a person to cause the offence of rioting.
9. Learned counsel submitted that the word 'malignantly' is used for the purpose of expressing higher degree of intensity or ill-will and the word, 'wantonly' means causing harm or damage deliberately and such words are used in Section 153 of IPC to mean that there must be higher degree of malice or evil that is projected or evident in the act of the accused. Unless such basic ingredients are proved, the FIR could not have been registered, invoking Section 153 of IPC.
10. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor2, to contend that the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC is cognizable while the offence under Section 505(1) of IPC is non-cognizable and to invoke Section 505(2), at least two communities should have been there, but, in the present 2 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 519 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 case, no religion, no community is referred to in the news items published and there are no two groups in the community and under such circumstances, Section 505 of IPC could not have been invoked.
11. Learned counsel submitted that the complaint was deliberately filed to arm-twist the petitioners and to prevent them from publishing the news items in the Kannada daily newspaper 'Cauvery Times', which amounts to preventing the petitioners from publishing the daily news in the newspaper which amounts to violating the rights of petitioners. When no ingredients either under Section 153 or Section 505 of IPC could be made applicable to the facts of the case, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed and accordingly, he prays for allowing of the petition.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 opposing the petition submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the Editor and News Reporter respectively, are in the habit of publishing the news items in 'Cauvery Times', Kannada daily newspaper and making it sensational at the cost of individual officials. It was -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 made with an intention to provoke the general public for rioting and these news items were published during Covid 19 pandemic, which was a very sensitive period. The petitioners have specifically referred to the names of the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police of Kodagu District and used foul language, only with an intention to give rise to riots in the society against the individual officers and also against the District administration. It is submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have followed the guidelines issued by State and Central Government to arrest Covid 19 pandemic effectively, but the same was made fun of by the petitioners by publishing the news items and making it very sensational. The allegations made in the news item have no basis whatsoever except intentionally to provoke the general public and to riot against the District administration.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that even though there was prohibition from publishing such news items as per the order passed by the District Magistrate, the petitioners proceeded to publish several such news items making false and provocative allegations. The intention of malice on the part of petitioners was evident from their conduct. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020
14. It is also submitted that even though two news items were produced by the petitioners to plead innocence, there are several such news items published in the daily newspaper which squarely attracts Section 153 and Section 505 of IPC. It is submitted that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and under such circumstances criminal proceedings is not liable to be quashed and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supporting the contentions taken by the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police both being ladies were referred to by their names in the news items repeatedly to showcase them in bad light. The intention of petitioners was very clear which squarely attracts Section 153 and Section 505 of IPC. There are many more such publications of news items referring to respondent Nos.3 and 4 personally and making fun of them only on the ground that they are lady officers. Prima facie, there is absolutely no basis for such news items that is being published, except with an intention to provoke the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 general public to cause riots and it is part of conducing public mischief and promoting enmity between the general public and the District administration. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
16. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition by quashing the FIR and directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
17. The informant has filed the First Information stating that during Covid 19 pandemic, when two lady Officers were heading the District administration as Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police of Kodagu District, the news items were published by the petitioners by intentionally giving false information and provoking the general public to cause riot and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 also promoting enmity, hatredness and ill will against the District administration.
18. Section 153 of IPC refers to the word, 'wantonly' to mean deliberately. When an act is done by the accused malignantly or wantonly to give provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely to cause provocation for the offence of rioting to be committed, the same is made punishable under this Section.
19. Similarly, under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, any statement is made with an intention or which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public, which may induce to commit the offence against the State or against the public tranquility is made punishable.
20. Sub-section (2) of Section 505 refers to such publications containing rumours or alarming news with an intention to create or promote the feeling of enmity or hatredness or ill-will on the ground of religion, race etc. and on any other grounds.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020
21. On perusal of few of the news items produced by the petitioners as per Annexures-'E' and 'F' and also produced by respondent Nos.1 to 4, they disclose that such news items were published during Covid 19 pandemic referring to two lady Officers, who were working as Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police of the District and alleging that the people from 'red zone' are illegally entering the 'green zone', i.e. Kodagu District and there are no person 'to question' the Officers concerned.
22. As we all know, the public were very scared and sensitive during Covid-19 Pandamic, as nobody was knowing what was happening and what was the reason for the pandemic and how to arrest it. Under such a delicate period, we have witnessed that the Government and the District administration were struggling hard day and night to safeguard the interest and the health of the public at large. But it is stated that the petitioners have come up with sensational news items published mainly referring to two lady officers by their names and also alleging that they are not taking any steps to arrest Covid 19 pandemic in the District, but on the other hand, they
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 are only after publicity by using the public money which is meant for curbing spread of Covid 19 pandemic.
23. If we go through the newspaper publications referred to by the informant, definitely, it would prima facie give provocation to the general public to cause rioting. It would place the top most Officers of public administration in bad light and prima facie, it is with an intention to cause fear to the public and doing mischief to induce them to commit an offence against public tranquility. The acts alleged against the petitioners, prima facie, is to promote enmity or hatredness against the District administration at a very distressful time. Under such circumstances, Section 153 and Section 505 of IPC are squarely attracted to the facts of the present case.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Kerala in Sanjeev. S (supra), wherein the High Court has referred to the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 153 of IPC and explained in detail the meaning of the word 'malignantly' and 'wantonly' used in the penal provision. It is stated that these words are not used as synonymous in the Section, as the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 word 'malignantly' is used for the purpose of expressing a higher degree of intensity or evil, while the word 'wantonly' is used to show causing harm or damage deliberately.
25. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law on the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 153 of IPC. If the requirement of law to attract the offence under Section 153 or 505 of IPC are applied to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie offence is made out by the complainant.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Bombay in Sandeep Arjun Kudale (supra), wherein the Court has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, wherein the contention of Prosecution that by spreading news that the members of the Indian Army were indulged in commission of atrocities against Kashmiri Muslims and whether it attract Section 153A and 505(2) of IPC was considered and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the common feature in both sections being promotion 3 (1997) 7 SCC 431
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no such groups in the case in hand, the Court on the basis of facts and circumstances of that case has made observations with regard to the same. In the present case, the statements are prima facie published with an intention to give provocation for rioting and contribute to cause public mischief to promote ill-will or hatredness against the administration.
27. A bare reading of Section 505(2) of IPC discloses that, it is not the requirement of law that there must be two religions, race or groups on the basis of place of birth, residence, religion, language caste or community. Section 505(2) of IPC takes care of a situation creating or promoting enmity, hatredness or ill-will between classes on any grounds whatsoever. In the present case, since the allegation is against the District Administration by referring to the Officers heading the District, prima facie, it is the intention of petitioners to provoke a class of society to create enmity, hatredness and ill- will against the District administration and to cause rioting.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020 Admittedly, the matter is still under investigation. At this stage, the contention of petitioners that they have not committed any offence punishable either Section 153 or 505, cannot be accepted.
28. The other contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, at the most, the news items published may amount to defamation and the respondents have not taken any action to invoke the penal provision for defamation. It cannot be a ground to allow the petition, as it is for the respondents to invoke the penal provision either under Section 153 or under Section 505 of IPC or to allege defamation. Simply because, the respondents have not filed any complaint alleging defamation against the petitioners, it cannot be concluded that they have not committed the offence either under Section 153 or under Section 505 of IPC.
29. In view of the discussions held above, this Court is of the opinion that the publications prima facie would constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners and therefore, the FIR registered by the respondent Police is not liable to be quashed.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29962 WP No. 8681 of 2020
30. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE VGR