Karnataka High Court
Timmappa Bhat vs Shri.M Siva Ram Prasad on 27 August, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10752 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Timmappa Bhat,
Editor, Vijayavani,
Kannada daily, II Floor,
VRL Complex,
CTS No.122/78A, New Cotton Market,
Hubli-580 029.
2. Shri A.B. Banajagi,
Press Reporter, Vijayavani
Kannada daily, Resident of
Chennapur Cross, Near Bus Stand,
Kittur-591 115,
Taluk: Bailhongal,
District: Belgaum. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, Advocate)
AND:
Shri M. Siva Ram Prasad,
Aged 41 years,
Occupation: Executive Partner,
2
M/s. Kittur Chennamma Poultry Farm,
Honnapur, Taluk: Bailhongal,
District: Belgaum. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Ganapathi M. Bhat, Advocate)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the entire
criminal proceedings in C.C.No.364/2013 on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bailhongal sitting at Kittur by
setting aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2013 in respect of
taking cognizance of the offences under Section 500 & 501 of
the IPC against the petitioners only.
This Petition coming on for final hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner No.1 is said to be the Editor of a Kannada daily 'Vijaya Vani' and petitioner No.2 is said to be a Reporter of the said newspaper. It transpires that the respondent is the partner of a farm namely M/s. Kittur Chennamma Poultry Farm at Honnapura Village of Kittur. It transpires that one Virupax Bisaralli, S/o. Sharanabasavaraj 3 Bisaralli who was the neighbouring land owner of the poultry farm, had filed a civil suit seeking closure of the poultry farm of the Respondent No.1 on the footing that it was unhygienic and was a nuisance. The suit was contested and there was an interim order of temporary injunction granted at the instance of the plaintiff directing the poultry farm to be closed, against which a Miscellaneous appeal had been filed, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the same is pending in writ petition filed in the writ jurisdiction of this court in W.P.No.79704/2013. In the meanwhile, in proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Tahsildar under Sections 133 and 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity), a penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on the respondent for unhygienic conditions prevailing in the poultry farm. In respect of this, a news report was published as reported by the second petitioner in the news daily of which the first petitioner is the Editor as per publication dated 9-12-2012 under the caption 'Koli jagalakke kevala savira rupayee danda!" and with an 4 exclamation mark, thereby given an impression that the penalty imposed was paltry and that the poultry farm ought to have been closed in the light of the interim order passed by the Civil Court and that the Tahsildar, overlooking this, has let-off the poultry farm lightly and that it is not only a nuisance to the plaintiff but was a nuisance to the nearby residents, as well as a school which was said to be 5 kms. away from the poultry farm and therefore, it was alleged by the complainant that the news report was biased and was aimed at defaming the poultry farm by distorting the circumstances and showing the poultry farm in poor light. The proceedings having been initiated by way of a complaint before the Court of the JMFC, Bailhongal by way of a private complaint, the petitioners are before this court. The petition was admitted in the first instance and there was stay of all further proceedings.
3. The petition now coming on for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the report cannot be said to be defamatory and that it is possibly biased, is 5 an opinion expressed by the complainant and from a reading of the news report, it cannot be said that there is nothing defamatory in the news report. The opinion expressed that the penalty imposed is paltry, is again the opinion expressed by the residents and others affected by the existence of the poultry farm within the locality, where there are residents and a school situated nearby. Therefore, the complaint is exaggerated reaction of the complainant to the actual facts and circumstances.
4. While the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suggestion as to the penalty imposed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar who is the Taluk Magistrate as being paltry, is itself a contempt of court and further, the allegation that the poultry farm of the respondent is maintained in unhygienic conditions though it is one of the largest poultry farms in the country with over 2 lakh birds and is housed in pacca buildings, which cannot be characterised as being unhygienic as such. Moreover, collection of birds are certainly 6 to be maintained in the most hygienic conditions for otherwise, the entire poultry farm would perish and hence, the suggestion that the poultry farm emanates foul smell and nuisance for the residents in the locality, was a suggestion made by the petitioners mischievously and certainly is defamatory of the poultry farm. The petitioners seeking to plead exception to Section 499 is not available to the petitioners, as the news item printed cannot be said to be a reflection of the true facts and circumstances and the tenor of the report is certainly not in line with the fact situation. Hence, he would plead that the proceedings be allowed to run its course and the petitioners would be entitled to claim their defence, which in effect are the grounds raised in the present petition.
5. Given the facts and circumstances, though there is a report which seeks to be in the nature of the opinion expressed by the author, the fact remains that there was a civil suit as well as parallel proceedings before the Tahsildar and the suggestion that the penalty imposed by the Tahsildar is paltry even if it 7 could be construed as contempt of court, it cannot be subject matter of a complaint by the present petitioner. Insofar as the suggestion that the poultry farm is a perpetual nuisance, is certainly an allegation made in the civil suit which the petitioners were reiterating in the news report. The further suggestion that there were widespread protest against the existence of the poultry farm, may again be a report of the existing circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be construed as being defamatory of the poultry farm or its owners. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the present petitioners stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS