Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Eshwarappa vs Sri B Vinod on 6 October, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6531 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI K.S.ESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE SRI SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
"JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA"
1ST MAIN ROAD
MALLESHWARA LAYOUT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.S.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B.VINOD
S/O LATE OMMEN BABY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
"BEENA VILLA" (UPSTAIRS)
KUVEMPU ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VANDANA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PRIVATE COMPLAINT VIDE NO.72/2020 FOLLOWED BY THE
SPL.C.C.NO.828/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE XC ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-91) BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCE U/S 499,500 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.828 of 2021, pending before the XC Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-91), Bengaluru, registered for offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri T.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The respondent is the complainant and the petitioner, the accused. A complaint comes to be registered on 13-12-2012 against the petitioner alleging various offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). The 3 respondent registered a private complaint in P.C.R.No.4 of 2012 before the Special Court at Shivamogga. The petitioner challenges the same by preferring a criminal petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No.228 of 2013. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent chooses to withdraw the private complaint itself. After such withdrawal, again the respondent prefers another private complaint on 06-01-2014 alleging that the petitioner and his son as also his daughter-in-law have indulged in such acts that would become offences under the Act. On enquiry being conducted, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was no sufficient grounds to proceed and, therefore, rejected the complaint in terms of his order dated 20-02-2014.
4. The respondent aggrieved by rejection of the complaint prefers a revision petition before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.224 of 2014 and this Court in terms of its order dated 21-10-2014 sets aside the order dismissing the complaint and restores it to file before the learned Sessions Judge to be heard on its merits. The petitioner then prefers criminal petition in Criminal Petition No.3618 of 2016 challenging the proceedings in P.C.R.No.5 4 of 2016 so registered by the respondent. This comes to be allowed. The respondent does not stop at that and seeks to register another complaint before the Special Court for Lokayukta for the offences under the Act, which also comes to be dismissed by the concerned Court under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the complaint, the respondent again prefers a criminal revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.197 of 2017. This is also dismissed by an order dated 13.11.2020. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the aforesaid dismissals of petitions filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The issue in the lis is what happens in the aftermath.
5. Several television channels had aired certain allegations against the petitioner with regard to flouting of BDA Rules and Regulations and obtaining 4 sites in Bengaluru. This was allegedly based upon the false affidavit filed by the petitioner. The television channels had repeatedly telecasted and the respondent had repeatedly indicated that he had evidence to establish that the petitioner had in fact been in indulging in flouting norms and acquiring property. Aggrieved by the repeated telecast on account 5 of act of the respondent, the petitioner filed O.S.No.4146 of 2017 for damages before the civil Court at Bengaluru, which is said to be pending. In this way, the proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent either initiated by the petitioner or by the respondent against the petitioner galore.
6. In one of the affidavits filed before the concerned Court in P.C.R.No.260 of 2017, it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner had made a statement that a person named Vinod is blackmailing him and that he would not budge to the blackmailing tricks and further clarified that he will not offer him even a half cup of tea. This statement is now taken forward to be a defamatory against the respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and the respondent registers a private complaint. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance and registers C.C.No.1098 of 2017. Challenging the said proceedings before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Petition No.4927 of 2018. This Court in terms of its order dated 07-10-2020 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and remitted the matter back to the 6 Special Court where it ought to have been filed and directed the Special Court to proceed further from the stage of receiving the complaint. The Special Court then takes cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. It is this proceeding that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is nothing defamatory about what the petitioner had said. He has only said that the respondent had filed several cases against the petitioner and he would not budge nor offer him a cup of tea. It is his case that it does not constitute an offence at all under Section 499 or Section 500 of the IPC and the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offence was an act which was untenable in law. He would further contend that this Court remitted the matter back to take cognizance from the stage of receiving the complaint. The Special Court could not have suo motu registered P.C.R.No.72 of 2020 after the remand and taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. He would submit that the respondent is in the habit of filing or 7 making complaints against the elected representatives before every possible fora. He would, therefore, seek to allow the petition.
8. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the statement made by the petitioner was undoubtedly defamatory as the statement is that the respondent is blackmailing the petitioner. He would submit that defamation would not be in the eye of what the petitioner thinks but what the general public would think about the respondent. He would submit that the proceedings are now 10 years old and they must be taken to their logical conclusion.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts, litigations generated between the two, one against the other, are all a matter of record and, they would not require any reiteration. Suffice it would be, if the narration of the story commences from the impugned proceedings. 8 The impugned proceedings would be the one registered by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 500 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Since the entire issue sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice certain paragraphs thereto and they read as follows:
"10. It is submitted that the accused, again started making derogatory statements and false accusations against the complainant accusing him of blackmail, extortion, etc. The accused organized a press meet on 27.06.2017, wherein he had made the statement that the complainant is trying to blackmail him. This statement was aired on 27.06.2017 in V3 Kannada news which telecasted the statement issued by the accused which was as follows: "«£ÉÆÃzï J£ÀÄߪÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛ ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁqÉÆÃPÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß £ÀqɹzÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV, ¤ªÀÄUÉ CzsÀð nà £ÀÆ PÀÄr¸ÉÆîè J£ÀÄߪÀAxÀºÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉý PÀ½¹zÉÝ. PÉÆ£ÉUÉ CªÀÅæ PÉÆÃnðUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀÄæ. ¯ÉÆÃAiÀÄgï PÉÆÃmïð £À°è CªÀæ «gÀÄzÀÞ DAiÀÄÄÛ, ºÉÊ PÉÆÃmïð £À®Æè £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄÛ. EzɯÁè DzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É F vÀgÀ ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄïï vÀAvÀæªÀ£Àß §¼À¹ÛzÁÝgÉ C£ÀÄߪÀAvÀºÀ CA±ÀªÀ£Àß FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÉÆÃmïð£À°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ, PÉÆÃmïð C«æUÉ §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV ºÉýzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀÆqÀ §»gÀAUÀªÁV CªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£À£ÀµÀÖ DUÀĪÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV PÉÆqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉýzÉ. FUÀ CªÀjUÉ F ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄïï vÀAvÀæ DUÀ°®è K£ÀÄ VlÖ°®è CAzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ºÉýzÀ ºÁUÉ ªÀiÁ£À £ÀµÀÖ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÉÝãÉ, Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉøï PÀÆqÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀªÀ¤zÉÝãÉ. AiÀiÁPÉ CAvÀAzÉæ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ §UÀÄΪÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛ £Á£ÀAvÀÆ C®è. £À£Àß D¹Û£À ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV ¯ÉÆÃPÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛPÀÆÌ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ. ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÀÆqÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ vÀ¦à®è. J®èªÀÇ QèAiÀÄgï PÀÆqÀ DUÉÆÃVzÉ. EAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄïï vÀAvÀæzÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÉ. ¨ÉzÀjPÉUÉ §UÉÆÎîè CAvÀ F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ºÉüÉÛãÉ. Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉÃ¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À£ÀµÀÖ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ MAzÀÄ ºÀAvÀPÉÌ §gÀÄvÉÛ C£ÀÄߪÀ «±Áé¸À £À£ÀVzÉ."
11. It is submitted that, the accused repeatedly using the word "Blackmail" against the complainant has severely tarnished his image in the eyes of the public at large and his family in particular. Millions of people have viewed this statement on TV and read in newspapers and have formed an adverse opinion against the complainant. The friends and 9 relatives of the complainant have called and met him and have stated that they have very bad opinion on him on viewing and reading the said statements. The complainant being a practicing advocate, his reputation has been very badly affected in the eyes of the friends, clients, relatives and public and the same is due to false, biased, derogatory and defamatory statement of the accused. The complainant came to now of the statement of the accused on Tv since it was posted on you tube and several whatsapp groups for which the complainant is also a member, which was subsequently downloaded by the complainant. It was also published in all the state and district papers such as vijayavani, echarike, jana horata etc, which stated " ೋ ಎನು ಪಂಚಹ ವ ನನ ನು ಾ ೕ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃPÉ ಪ ಯತ ಪಡು ಾ!"ೆ. ಾನು $ಾವ ೇ ಾ ೕ ತಂತ %ೆ& §UÀÄΪÀÅ¢®è."
12. It is submitted that the accused stating "£Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á ಸ(ಷ*+ಾ,, .ಮ0ೆ ಅzsÀð nà £ÀÆ ಕು3¸ÉÆÃಲ ಎನು ವಂಥಹ 6ಾತನು 7ೇ8 ಕ89 ೆ!." Is absolutely a false statement since the complainant has never met the accused anywhere in his life. The accusations, derogatory statements, libelous and slanderous remarks that are being made by the accused during the pendency of prosecution proceedings against him and his other family members before the court of law, has not alone damaged the reputation of the complainant in public, but has also resulted in circumvention of process of Justice. Due to the boisterous false allegations, the complainant is put answerable situations before the friends, relatives and before the public at large.
13. It is submitted that the particular remark of the accused against the complainant to the effect that he has launched prosecution proceedings against the accused for unlawful gains and for the purpose of blackmailing him is absolutely false and a blatant lie intended for the purpose of generating a public opinion and thereby flash his personality as sober, though the documents speaks much of his corrupt acts.
14. It is submitted that, many are refusing to even talk to the complainant after the statement was aired on media and watched by the people. The clients of the complainant and 10 the public at large who had high respect for the complainant for his crusade against corruption started to look at the complainant with suspicion, thus hurting his integrity. The accused who is duty bound to be very careful in his employment of language against respectable persons, has used the word "Black mail" with absolute disregard to the respect and reputation of the complainant. This has been done with an intention to damage the reputation of the complainant and to project him as a blackmailer in the eyes of the general public and de moralizing him in his fight against corruption. As a practicing advocate, the reputation of the complainant has been irreparably affected by the abusive conduct and derogatory statements of the accused. He has issued such derogatory statements knowing fully well that the same would cause such damage to the reputation of the complainant. Hence he has committed offence as defined under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. It is submitted that the statements made by the accused and aired on TV, published in several newspapers and posted on the internet, viewed and read by millions of people have formed a bad opinion on the complainant and has affected the reputation of the complainant as he is one of the members of the respected community and he has no enmity or any bad antecedents to cause harm or damage to his reputation. The accused being a responsible opposition leader of the legislative council, having knowledge that such statements would cause such a damage and harm, has committed the said offences with impunity. Hence this complaint."
What is alleged is that the petitioner started making derogatory statements and false accusations against the complainant accusing him to be indulging in blackmail and extortion. The petitioner is said to have organized a press meet on 27-06-2017 wherein he makes a 11 statement that the complainant is trying to blackmail him and therefore, he had intention only to extort money from the petitioner and the purport of the statements were that the complainant was a blackmailer or an extortionist. It is further averred that the usage of the word blackmail has severely tarnished his image in the eyes of the public and therefore, it would become ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC which would become an offence under Section 500 of the IPC. Since these statements were made in a press meet, it was undoubtedly in the public.
11. The learned Magistrate on noticing the fact that there were enough ingredients to register a crime against the petitioner registers one. The petitioner was an elected representative of the people. The learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence as it had to be before the special Court. On this score the petitioner approaches this Court in a criminal petition challenging the act of the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offence. This Court allows the petition, sets aside the order taking cognizance and remits the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to redo the proceedings from the stage of receipt 12 of the complaint. The concerned Court now takes cognizance of the offence and registers Special C.C.No.828 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The statement that is made, was undoubtedly made in public. Prima facie, it does indicate that it has lowered the image of the respondent in the eyes of general public. It was open to the petitioner to have fought the legal battle in a manner known to law which he had indulged throughout. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown proceeding before the concerned Court as the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are prima facie met in the case at hand. Section 499 of the IPC dealing with ingredients of defamation reads as follows:
"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, 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 such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the fellings of his family or other near relatives.13
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.--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, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
First Exception.--Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.--It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching any public question.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.--It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.--A Justice of the Peace or other officer 14 holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception.--Merits of public performance.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.--Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's 15 interests.--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.-- It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good."
Imputing or making derogatory statements either spoken or intended to be read or signs by visible representations concerning any person intending to harm is said to be defaming the said person. If the statements made by the petitioner as quoted supra which form part of the private complaint would clearly indicate prima facie that they would be in the realm of one of those ingredients that would become an offence under Section 500 of the IPC. It becomes necessary, therefore, to notice the interpretation of Section 500 of the IPC by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of JEFFREY J.DIERMEIER v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1 has after discussing necessary ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC held as follows:
1
(2010) 6 SCC 243 16 "29. To constitute "defamation" under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that to constitute defamation there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming a person. Harm caused should be to the reputation of the person in the eyes of the public. All these ingredients are present in the private complaint or the statements made by the petitioner against the respondent in the press meet. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. The pot of litigation is kept boiling, on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the concerned Court shall now make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a time frame. 17
12. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
(ii) The concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if not earlier.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same would not bind or influence the concerned Court in concluding the proceedings on its merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:SS