Karnataka High Court
Sri. Selvarangam vs Sri. Ms.Ranjitha Menon on 27 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2021 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. Sri Selvarangam,
S/o N.Munusamy,
Aged about 74 years,
The Publisher,
Kumudam Publications (P) Ltd.,
Old No.151, New No.306,
Purasawalkam Main Road,
Chennai-600010.
2. Sri S.Paul Antony Raj,
S/o Susainathan,
Aged about 53 years,
The Printer,
Kumudam Publications (P) Ltd.,
Old No.151, New No.306,
Purasawalkam Main Road,
Chennai-600010.
3. Sri Charu Nivedita,
S/o G.Krishnaswamy,
Aged about 66 years,
The Writer,
Kumudam Publications (P) Ltd.,
Old No.151, New No.306,
Purasawalkam Main Road,
Chennai-600010.
...Petitioners
(By Sri Amar Correa, Advocate)
2
AND
Ms. Ranjitha Menon,
D/o P.Ashok Kumar,
Aged about Major,
R/at No.72, C.V.Raman Road,
Annapoorneshwari Layout,
Kodipalya, Kengeri Hobli,
Off Uttarahalli, Kengeri Main Road,
Bengaluru-560060.
Also at:
C/o Sri Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam,
Kallugopanahalli,
Mysuru Road,
Bidadi-562109.
...Respondent
(vide order dated 22.01.2020,
notice to respondent held sufficient)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to (i) set aside the order dated
30.11.2011, passed by the III Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in
P.C.R.No.21959/2011 (now registered in
C.C.No.35950/2011 pending before the XXXII Addl.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru) Directing to register a criminal case against the
petitioners, who are accused No.3, 4 and 8 for the offences
punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC and issuing
summons and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 3 35950/2011 (arising from PCR No.21959/2011) on the file of 32nd ACMM, Bengaluru. The 2nd respondent initiated proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the petitioners and other accused for the offences punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Amar Correa, learned counsel for the petitioners. The 2nd respondent is served with notice, but she has not appeared before the court.
3. Sri. Amar Correa submitted that he would not press the petition in so far the 3rd petitioner is concerned.
4. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the publisher and the printer of a magazine viz., 'Kumudam' respectively. The main allegation of the 2nd respondent in the complaint is that the 8th accused 4 i.e., the 3rd petitioner authored and got published an article titled, 'Sarasam Sallabam Samaiar' (Frolicking Flirtatious Swamy) in the magazine Kumudam. The article was published in 30 serials from 18.3.2010 to 27.06.2010. The 2nd respondent has alleged that the articles contained defamatory statements and morphed and fabricated obscene pictures of her with Swamy Nithyananda. The 2nd respondent is a cine actress and stated that these articles are bereft of truth. Therefore she initiated criminal action for defamation.
5. Sri. Amar Correa, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 being the publisher and the printer of the Kumudam Publications Pvt. Ltd., respectively are not responsible if the article contained defamatory statements. If the complaint made by the 2nd respondent is read, it can be made out that there are no specific allegations 5 against the petitioners 1 and 2. There are no allegations also that the article was published in the magazine intending to harm the reputation of the 2nd respondent in the society. If at all the article is defamatory, only the editor of the magazine can be prosecuted in view of presumption being drawn against the editor in accordance with Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act. Since such a presumption cannot be drawn against the printer and the publisher, the complaint must contain specific allegations against them, otherwise they cannot be prosecuted. In this view the action initiated against the petitioners 1 and 2 is abuse of process of court and hence, the proceedings against them is required to be quashed. In support of his arguments, he has garnered support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. R.B. Chowdhari and others (1967 3 SCR 708) 6 and K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another [(1992) 1 SCC 217].
6. In order to appreciate the argument of Sri. Amar Correa, it is necessary to peruse the complaint made by the 2nd respondent. She has given the details of her career and areas of interest and stated that the article has harmed her reputation in the society. But what is conspicuously absent is specific allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2, what is found is omnibus allegations against all the accused. Section 499 of IPC defines the offence of 'defamation'. The basic requirement is intention to harm the reputation. Therefore, the complaint must unequivocally contain allegation against each accused. But specific allegation against the editor of a magazine or a newspaper is not necessary in view of Section 7 of The Press and Registration of Books Act. In the case of R.B.Chowdhari (supra), it is observed that the term 7 editor is defined in The Press and Registration of Books Act that he is a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper. Therefore, it is at the instance of the editor of a news magazine that an article is published and in this view presumption has been provided in the said Act. But the position is not so in the case of printer or publisher. In the decision of K.M.Mathew, a question arose whether the Chief Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for defamation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "10. It is important to state that for a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint in the instant case does not contain any such allegation. In the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate 8 was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with. To ask the Chief Editor to undergo the trial of the case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person should be tried without a prima facie case. The view taken by the High Court is untenable. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside".
7. Since in this case there are no specific and positive averments against the petitioners 1 and 2, the motive to defame the 2nd respondent cannot be attributed to them. The learned Magistrate ought to have applied his mind before proceeding against them. In this view, I do not think the petitioners 1 and 2 can be prosecuted, and if they are prosecuted it is nothing but abuse of process of court. Hence the following :
9
ORDER The petition is dismissed as withdrawn so far as 3rd petitioner is concerned. Liberty is granted to the 3rd petitioner to raise all the contentions taken by the 3rd petitioner in this petition during trial of the case.
The petition stands allowed in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 and the proceedings against them in C.C.No.35950/2011 (arising from PCR No.21959/2011) on the file of 32nd ACMM, Bengaluru are quashed.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.1/2020 is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd