Karnataka High Court
S Nagarajan Production Assistant Dd ... vs Nadoja Dr. Mahesh Joshi Ib (P) S on 26 July, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH R
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100812 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. S. NAGARAJAN
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DD INDIA
DOORDARSHAN BHAWAN TOWER-B
COPERNICUS MARG
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. B. ASHOKA
HELPER,
SUPER POWER TRANSMITTER
ALL INDIA RADIO,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU.
RESIDING AT :
II MAIN, SUNCITY LAYOUT
OPP. GOWRISHANKAR TEMPLE
KOTHANUR VILLAGE
7TH PAHSE, J.P.NAGAR
BANGALORE-78. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NADOJA DR. MAHESH JOSHI IB(P)S
S/O. HANUMANT BHAT JOSHI,
C/O GIRISH S. DESHPANDE
2
HOUSE NO.2385,
BEHIND DUTTA TEMPLE
HANAGAL-581104
HAVERI DISRICT.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.10, GURU GOVIND KRUPA
16 MAIN, R.K.LAYOUT,
3RD PHASE, PADMANABH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560070.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4/PETITIONERS IN CC
NO.76/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 499, 500 R/W SECTION 34 AND
120(B) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.07.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4
praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.76/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
3
Judge and JMFC at Hangal for the offences punishable under
Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent-
complainant by filing a private complaint is that accused No.1
had written a complaint dated 23.01.2015 of sexual harassment
at work place of Director General, Dooradarshan and the same
was forwarded to Prime Minister of India, Minister I & B, State
Minister I & B, Chairman-Prasar Bharati, CEO-Prasar Bharati,
Chairperson NCW and Chairperson, Internal Complaints
Committee with an intention to spoil the image of the
respondent and also filed complaint of sexual harassment before
Tilak Marg Police Station on 04.03.2015. As a result, the
complainant got deprived his promotion to the post of the
Director General.
3. It is contended in the complaint making an allegation
against the accused Nos.3 and 4 that they are in conspiracy with
the accused No.1 for giving information regarding such
allegations to media and because of which the said news was
publicized in the newspaper as contended in Paragraph Nos.22
4
and 23 of the complaint. It is also alleged against the petitioners
that, in order to support the accused No.1, gave false statement
as witness before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating
Officers. Hence, filed the complaint against them. The only
allegation against the accused No.4 is that he wrote an email
asking authorities to take action against the complainant on the
complaint of sexual harassment filed by the accused No.1
against the complainant and posted the copy of said email to
friends, well wishers and relatives. The Trial Court, by its order
dated 05.11.2016, dismissed the complaint filed by the
complainant against the accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 on the ground
that no prima facie material to proceed against the above
accused for taking cognizance. However, proceeded to register
criminal case against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is also
contended that accused No.1 and complainant had compromised
the matter for settling the dispute between themselves and
permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint filed
against the accused No.1.
5
4. The ground urged in this petition is that when the
accused No.1 had withdrawn the complaint against the accused
No.1, the question of proceeding against these two petitioners,
who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 does not arise.
The genesis for initiating present criminal proceedings by the
complainant was sexual harassment complaint filed by the
accused No.1. It is also contended that, in the complaint, specific
allegations are made against the accused No.1 and common
intention and conspiracy along with the accused No.1 is alleged
in the complaint and when the complaint was withdrawn against
the accused No.1, the question of conspiracy does not arise and
continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of
law. The complainant has made an allegation against the
petitioners that they have given false evidence against the
complainant before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating
Officers to defame the reputation of the complainant. The
petitioners have given statement of what they had knowledge
about the incident and given the statement before the Enquiry
Authorities and Investigating Officers as witnesses and the same
does not amount to defamation and the petitioners have not
6
made any statement or remarks against the respondent-
complainant to spoil his name and respect in the society. Hence,
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also in his
argument reiterated the grounds which have been urged in the
petition that once the case has been compromised between the
accused No.1 and the complainant, the question of continuing
the criminal prosecution does not arise and no material is placed
against the petitioners. The only allegation against the
petitioners is that they made the statement against the
respondent-complaint and the same will not amount to
defamation. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court
the allegations made in the private complaint and the same does
not attract the offence of defamation.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant
would vehemently contend that this Court has already decided
similar petition and decision is also taken on merits and there is
no changed circumstance. The complainant also brought to
notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in
7
CRL.P.NO.4014/2017 dated 02.04.2019, wherein in the said
petition it is observed that specific allegations are made against
the petitioners to proceed against them and direction was issued
to the learned Magistrate to comply with the provisions of
Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed in accordance with
law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent also brought to
notice of this Court Paragraph Nos.21, 22 and 23 of the PCR
No.62/2016, wherein specific allegations are made against these
petitioners and contend that the allegations made in the
complaint amounts to defamation. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court Paragraph No.33, wherein also, in respect of
accused Nos.1 and 4, specific allegations are made. Learned
counsel also brought to notice of this Court the cognizance order
dated 28.02.2020, wherein an observation is made by the Trial
Court in Paragraph No.13 in respect of accused No.3 and in
respect of accused No.4 in Paragraph No.14 and contend that
specific allegations made against both of them are narrated and
in Paragraph Nos.27 and 28, an observation is made that
8
accused No.3 gave his statement before Internal Complaint
Committee as well as before Tilak Nagar Police, New Delhi. The
accused No.3 gave statement before competent authorities
stating that he was present when complainant sexually harassed
accused No.1. Admittedly, Internal Complaint Committee
submitted report stating that there was no such sexual
harassment by the complainant to the accused No.1 and taken
note of the said fact into consideration. In Paragraph No.28,
made an observation that accused No.4 had sent mails to
Ministry of I.B. and other officers. There is material on record to
show that the complainant has taken action against the accused
No.4 when he was Director of Dooradarshana, Bangalore.
Hence, it does not require any interference by exercising power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Complainant in
support of his argument relied upon the judgment of this Court
in W.P.NO.20061 OF 2013 dated 23.07.2013, wherein in
Paragraph No.5 of the order, an observation is made that merely
because the complainant decided to compound the offences
9
against accused 2 and 3, petitioner cannot insist that the case
against him also must be compounded. The complainant, at his
choice could continue the prosecution against only some of the
accused and compound the offence against others. Therefore,
the petitioner as a matter of right cannot seek a direction to the
complainant to compound the offence against him also.
9. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
High Court of Delhi between SUNIL TOMAR VS. THE STATE OF
NCT OF DELHI & ANR. in CRL.M.C.NO.1741/2021 dated
12.04.2022 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.9
of the order, wherein an observation is made that partial
quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/accused
with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the
matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be
appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to
suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when
subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the
parties.
10
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondent-complaint, this Court has
to analyze the material available on record. No doubt, it is not in
dispute that a compromise was entered into between the
complainant and accused No.1 and grounds urged in the petition
is that when the case was compromised with the accused No.1,
who is the main accused, this Court has to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4.
Having referred the averments made in the complaint against
the petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and
4, particularly in Paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the complaint and
also considering the order passed by the Trial Court while taking
cognizance, discussed the same in Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of
the cognizance order dated 28.02.2020 as against the accused
Nos.3 and 4 respectively and while taking cognizance, the Trial
Court in Paragraph No.27, in respect of accused No.3, taken note
of the fact that accused No.3 made his statement before the
Internal Complaint Committee as well as before the Tilak Nagar
Police, New Delhi, wherein a sexual harassment allegation is
made against the complainant and the Internal Complaint
11
Committee submitted a report stating that there was no such
sexual harassment by the complainant to accused No.1. Hence,
it was held that act of accused No.3 itself is sufficient to hold
that, he knowing fully well, though there is no such incident of
sexual harassment to the accused No.1 by the complainant gave
false statement before the competent authority. Therefore, held
that there is a prima facie material against accused No.3.
11. In respect of accused No.4, it is held that there is
material on record to show that accused No.4 had sent mails to
Ministry of I.B. and other officers. In all, he has sent mail to
eight persons making allegation that complainant has indulged in
such case earlier also. There is on record to show that the
complainant has taken action against the accused No.4 when he
was Director of Dooradarshana, Bangalore. Just to take revenge,
the accused No.4 has made false allegation against complainant
and sent mails to higher authorities. Hence, held that there is
prima facie material against accused No.4 to that effect and
without there being any reason, made false and baseless
allegation against the complainant.
12
12. Having taken note of the material considered by the
Trial Court against the petitioners, the Trial Court has issued
summons. When such materials are placed on record, it is not a
fit case to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. and this Court does not find any abuse of process as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
contention that there is no material against the petitioners
cannot be accepted.
13. The judgments referred by the learned counsel for
the respondent-complainant i.e., the judgment of this Court and
High Court of Delhi are squarely applicable to the facts of the
case on hand and the grounds urged in the petition is also that
in view of compromise between accused No.1 and the
complainant, there cannot be a criminal prosecution against the
petitioners and the said contention cannot be accepted and the
Court has to take note of the allegation made against each of the
accused and when prima facie materials are found against the
petitioners to take cognizance and issued the process, the
question of interference by exercising the power under Section
13
482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground
to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the ground
that in view of the compromise, the proceedings has to be
quashed cannot be accepted in view of the judgments referred
above by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.
14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST