J E George vs C Dinakar on 11 July, 2008

[Cites 9, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

J E George vs C Dinakar on 11 July, 2008

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

 

1
1%! THE HEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

{DATED THIS THE 1 173 DAY OF' JULY 2008

BEFGRE

THE HOWBLE Mr. JUSTICE H N NAGAMOHAN DAS 

CRL.P.NO. 535 SF' 200'?

J E GEGRGE 
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 
RETI) I;}§REC'¥'OR GENERAL OF' POLICE A
HOME GUARDS NG332 GRGUNGFLGGR
HUNDRED FEET ROAD  
HAL 1: STAGE INDIRANAGAR '

BANGALORE8   G 
« .G _ --.,..{.»PETI"ET§{}NE'R

 AGED ;a.E~3G'LG' 55 YRS
 A RETD.-v.Di~RE:C'FOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
 CiwENE;Ra'-XL. mniczg KARNATAKA STATE
'G;G'LATis'."G1{:=G.R.G1NA;<AR !'«IO.38O
HUNDRED FEET ROAD HAL 1: STAGE
:m3::§A:qAGAR, i:£AN(}AL{}Rhi 5G0 008

 SM: SHEILA GEORGE
* _w_/ on I: GEORGE
'R/AT NO.9[8{) WHATTLE STREET
  FULL1:*;l~<f'l'()f\1 5003 A1)§:}LAl§_}bL
 'SOUTH ALFSTRALEA

.., RESPONDENTS

(By Sri : C BINAKAR, PARTY IN PERSON) d\"""'"' CRLP FILED UfS.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIGNER PRAYING THAT' THIS l-{ONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED T0 SET ASEDE THE ORDER [)'I'.22.9.(}6 PASSED BY THE ADDL.i3ISI'., ANQ %., FTC- 1:><;, B'LORE3 IN ceL.RP.No.55e/es Arm RESTORE 'r1;:e_ COMPLAINT e.e.1~zo.219*27/05 mm) BY THE Perm-._' HEREIN BEFORE THE VIII ADDL.CMM., B'LORE. This criminal Petition having been ' reserved for orders, this day, V-J.',--_ pmnounced the following:

0 R D E R Petitioner is the 11usbandllQ:f' res.'-p0§1de§3.tA. respondent is an advocate. The_...ilf*3:._re$p0Ilel'e;1:AA a petition against the petitieteer. ltzhnéﬁieirlé 30 of the Indian 13§§%on.%§e"Aé':1c, "1.»'::34t$";'.:li1~.:'_.h4'l.('.:.§lllvl692/1999 cm the ﬁle Family Celzrl dissolution of marriage on the grelztzd of"a;lultery,A"v.ci9[:elty, bestiality etc. The 2""

Vresporlclent-L». herlllpetiﬁon in M.C3.No.692{1999 made "_aga;i:t1st the petitioner stating that the l peﬁﬁegler liaving illicit relationship with a maid Aeeaxﬁing '£0 the petitioner, the allegations made 21"! respondent against the petitioner in 'v"-..__léi.C5;!\lo.692/1999 are ciefamatoxy in nature as deﬁned u"u;11eler Section 499 IPC and liable for punishment under Section 500 I390. The petitiener further contends that in a press conference held on 2.6.2003, the second respondent handed over a copy of petition in M.C.N<:a.692]1999 to the fire: respondent with maiaﬁde intent that the same V.§:'«__z_=: published ans} ciretllatecl. On these grounds the ﬁled a private criminal complaint against the V' in PCR N0.i1953]2OO3 on the £11-sswof'w;{:WAde'1.;'r§i::é_f_ Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore 7]' CRPC for the offences ;3unishab»IeV:vLi:m_derA'&}eetio;;é§:v?l»§~§§);' mad with 34 IPC. The ma: the offence and after recordiﬁ§--;i1e. zegistered the ease in C.C.NQ£-.?}92?i'20e.'€>S: tea the Iespondents. _ Hstlle Trial Court elated the offence and issuing ﬁled criminal revision petition No.S'5§$i2Q(5$_ Add}. Sessions Judge, Fast 'I'rac§«;, .(§ei111~IX, Bafigaioxfe city. The revisional court after parties passed the impugned order petition and dismissed the complaint V of the";:>etif;iex1e'f as premature, Hence this petition. V n Beam'! learned counsel for the petitioner and ..'Tt.he'--V§2'ﬂaA respondent and 15* respondent party-£11-person. T ¥"eri1sed the entire papers, dxyvv 5

iii) J.Jem:1011s Vs. A}ian1ma}~ 1997(7) SCC 382

5. The Supreme Court in D S i"a1vathamma's cast;

heid that a new plea which is essantiaiiy" a plea of cannot be allowegi to be urged for the first *7"

hearing of appeal under Article 136 Qf the C»ét:s£i1futi'<:v :1'- _ '4 more so, when it is cantmry to the : AA appellant himselfin the High Court 3 In Vallabhdas ('hurt allowed the application ﬁled amendment of plaint ta» "1';1iéiI:;*ate'=f§f--.iﬁEé:a:~:»st. vfiom 6% per annum to 13% pefmanmlm. ..Sn.nﬁ}!:ahe¢usl}* passsd a decree 1101:

am}; based ozftljxé but for exceeding it. 111 a civil the Sun1f31'emv_e:_ Cauxt held that a new plea cannot I:>_<_:f »a1io\A_red '£0 'bid-.1faised Without eﬁecﬁng amendment of pie'é1d.iV1ﬂg{$, VV reasonabit: opporiunity to the vopposjfé to ﬁle further pieadings ané aclducc _ " ' Aeét'vi,<:ie:31T::__e, ' i:t1 Jermon's case the Supreme Court held that there

-~a fundamrmta}. difference between a case of raising kiddiﬁexzai grouné based on the plaadings and the znaiicrial available an record and a case of taking a new plea not d\\,!'\z'\/ borne out ef the pleadings. in the former case no amendment of pleadings is required whereas in the Iiatter is necessary to amend the pieadings.

5. in View of the law declared by the Court in the decisions refened to above "l3:;}g'egl by the learned counsel for the _.pet:£tie13.e'f--..is beeeci " oh .

materrial on record. Further the is :io_f._ 'ae based on new facts, but 011:' the o§;1'1'e;'V' ie a question of iaw. Therefore, to urge a legal ground to the memorandum Vﬁlenee, I decline to accept the cztenteﬁﬁée. of :%ﬁSp'%ﬂéi€n$3i

7. Thisceuft safe; 4R."Mauy's case held that 'fwhen theiestle toéiadultely is pending before the if is not open for the complainant to I11s1:{' to lodge a complaint for offence M r§f_:iefan1 4atioIi; . igfthe event of matrimonial court holds that :'e3;ie,;§a$iops cf saduitery are false then that court to take action or it may be open to the complainant to the criminal court on the basis of the ﬁnding of Uzeairimonial court." Relying on this judgment, the revisienal court dismissed the compiajnt filed by the <:>'\**"""' petitioner before the Trial Court on the ground that the same W38 premature.

8. in Surinder Mohan Vikal's case the ~ that the appellant: ﬁled a complaint against the i*espiiii€i.eIi:tV'i"' in the court of Judicial Magistrate Cantt on 15th March 1972 for oﬁ'encesba'«f£?1iiliSl1aii1e..AAA§1I1ciex~'v Section 460 and 420 IPC. In t1TlCV>C1:J:l'fii1:)1Ei_l1TAllZ, .th'e. alleged that the respondent méncy ivith eriniinal, ﬁaudulent and The Magistrate Court con3?ic.ted t'_§tie'VreVé§pQ:t1cl'er;t.V'- Additional Sessions Judge. "tlie_.1'£e_spe1i;lent'mend the High Court upheld Iespoiidezit filed a complaint oﬁ appellant for offences punishabkrv untier IPC on the ground that ailegvationei éi'e"ii1ade in the earlier proceeclings. Tliﬁ had taken cognizance and issued i"AA....v,st1mnioii'$i tov_::ippeBa11t for appearance. Aggrieved by oréer erf;. Magistrate the appeiiant ﬁled a criminal Before the High Court under Section 482 CRPC and V" seine came to: be rejected. The Supreme Court reverseé V V htirtier of High Court and dismissed the Cemplaint before the Magistrate on the gmuiid that the same was barred by I v,-\_/!\./ limitation. The Supreme Court laid down the following princiylcsz I, The statutes of limitcztion. have legislative p<3'{i§{:j:;eﬂ'-VT:

behind them They shut cut belated and dormant -1- order to save the acatsed from umtecesswy harassmeiztv _ from the risk: offctcirzg trial at :11! time whehihis 'e:gidenge_Aii1éi§;ht ' --. have been lost because 9f the delay en :"

prosecmor. (438 B-{3}

2. Section 468 of the CrirrtinttE..Pi*eped1ife~ cgegfnoz onfy raises bar of !in7itatio%;:.e_:5}--:t e-iilsei. g;i'fe3¢'::ti'iE;es the period thereof The question when the éf could be said to commence tie-s:'u:ithir;ttiie' 'of Sub-s.(I) af 5,469 spectfiegzily §ffep1'dee' of Iirrumtion prescnribect in shat! commence inter alizrt F-G)

3. it of sub-5(1) of seen Criminal i1--*roc:t:::i;;;:eA'Lf:;:¢e; 29513 that the person who __seeks ifteifﬁeﬁejit stzeuld____§e able to establish. that he was : <,2i%etIf:er prosecution in (me Court or the other referrée §§uI;i¥_':-:;ectz'on. (43?-G) instcmt ease, (ca) the date of the offence wees March. _1'}:E", 1972 when defamatery <:mnplain.t was filed ' Cfczgért the Magistrate and that was the starting point ' ts'§e''pi:rpeses of CC£.IC3biICZZ'i?'tg the three years' limitation 'p;%o;:;'g:§ee by 3,468,119) the complaint under $500 IZPC. was on 11-2-19?'5 much after the eyqoiry of three years Iimitatien prescribed for that ejffence. It was, therefare, not W/V passible for tide court of the Magistrate £9 take <:agn=t}::a:2.ae ef the ojffence after the expiry of the period cf Iin1:'ta.€1'3n; (<3) #23 queszion of 'cazxse {if adieu' coniemgaiaied én s.469{E}{¢,!_;.<_T'~V. {amid rm! arise as the mntraversy reiaied 10 'the ;_. A' cf an aﬁianae' and {d} the pmvisfen of .sub.s(I} sj.V'§~:é*t2 'A oannat avail the respondeni as 12213 caasacwas n,ig'tVs'.c%." 'ﬁe A :29? claim the benefit e;fs/I173 eiiker, if

9. In View cf the law "

court in Surindez" Mahala X{ﬂ<a1's L#1€"Q§ué%§ bf for thc Qifence of defamation date of oﬁence. In the cast; fled M.C.No.592,1 199$}, 2 gyét;-fi;ti;§§1ge}'i*'VVV'on :3.?.1999. Therefore: thg commences on the ciay tx;£1cn~ ﬁxade allegations against the petiti<::nc:*'Li;:% hef' M.C.N0.f§92/1999. This _.<;0i1x1: ufiopi Ru[I°$'E€2:l1ya';~,V case has not cansidcred the V. 1f.1:L€1§éttiQn. Therefore, the law laid down by this case and the reasoning of the V xtvisioﬁal c-étirtihat the cause of action will arise only after " fa11_1ﬂyV'céurt hoids that the allctgatiens made by the 4'_t€;_s§;2§511<.*l--z:'A3:1t against the petitizimer as false, is contrary to the dawn by the supreme court.

10. The oﬁcuce of defamaticu 11116161' Section 499 of 113113 is punishable Linder Section 500 EPC wit}: an dwﬁ 36 ixnprieenment exceeding one year and net exceeding three years. Section 468(2](e) of CRPC speciﬁes that there ie.~~a__ bar to take cognizance ef an oﬁence of defamation lapse of period of limitaﬁon of three years. In of declared by the Supreme Court in Suziiictmj case the date of starting point for the it three years period of limitatioxitemgxtmeiieee when the 2nd r=esgondent__ filed the petitioner. The pettﬁetie.r ttiivate crimina} eoeapiairlt before in P.C.R.Ne. 1 1953.,!3e{)ei§':E§e ij'ThM-§:§=,"6n the face of it, the ggetttioner against the msponéeet is ' and the Trial Court committed error ijf1_tei1;:£z1g2_.rognizanee of eﬁenee. There is 4___1.1o expﬁeliéiition petitioner in his complaint regardillg A*de3Aay.«.,'t'l:Qt1e;}:1--.;iot_for the reasons stated by the l'€.ViSi0I1aI fetV"_t11e'tje§sons stated in this order, the impugned Vorder "bf 'tevieional court dismissing the private .. ¢9"m9z_gjnt filed by the petitioner is sustained, Learned Counsel for the petitiener contends T uthetton 2.6.2603 the respondents distributed the copies of §¢'I.C.Petitie-11 will give a new cause of action for the petitiener to {ﬁe a private complaint is unacceptable to me. 0"

E1 The petitioner in para 11 of his private: complaint statﬁd as unrier:

"In any event, Accused Na? has deiivered and over (2. (raspy of M.C;No.69_?/Z999, £0 Accused No.2 maiaﬁde intent that the same be published and Witfwut prejudice, ihe fzandfng ever of Mc.Ne.592[-1,999'-5} % T L the petitioner is itself an offence of def(2mdti:¢r2., "

A wading of this al1r.=:gati0:1_ in i';1}.§ privatjeb'V.':;*r§in1ii1s§};--¢ complaint ﬁled by the ;3etiti{>ii"$x}:."'~.«3n1y 's;";_><'=,'::~iﬁ.€:é ' *t'V1Vr1VV.'§.t respondent no.2 ha11ded.c3v§_r af giétitibix to respondent no.1. There V i5' that the respondents hax{::'1**t:ad <3:-.VA_:1; aiiégzggfjcnég bontained in M.C.N0.592/ 19°99 of the same to the reading of these allegations 'V not cons*.:;it11te ciefamatiqji as' i1$1d€Vi" '5§t':1'Jti0{1 499 EPC. Therefore thé Triai eI'r0I' in taking cognizaﬁce cf the Zéiﬁepvge off 'j_éf i:.his i}f1S11fﬁCi€I1t, vague anti abs1;_n;'1:'Ta_l1¢g3,ti0ns." ..

For -.rears;;.¥ns stated above, the petition is hcmby €1iés_éiss€si'.* .., H Sd/"§_ fudgé 33KB!»

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court