Karnataka High Court
Balachandra Mahadeva Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101655/2017
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.101446/2017
& 101654/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.101655/ 2017
BETWEEN
1. BALACHANDRA MAHADEVA HEGDE
AGE: 42 YEARS , R/O: GADIKAI ,
POST: TARGID (BA IRUMBE)
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA.
2. PRAKASH KAKAL
S/O KAKAL LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGE: 46 YEARS , R/O: HEGGODU,
POST: HONNESARA,
TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
3. R. GANAPATHI BHAT
S/O RAMAKRISHN A BHAT,
AGE: 65 YEARS ,
R/O: JIGA LEMANE,
POST: YEDAJI GALEMANE,
TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
4. SANATHANA SAMARATHA BHAT
S/O R. GANAPATHI BHAT,
AGE: 32 YEARS ,
-2-
R/O: JIGA LEMANE,
POST: YEDAJI GALEMANE,
TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
5. SUBRAHMANYA KUMARA K.M.
S/O LAT E BA LAKRISHNA BHAT K .M.,
AGE: 50 YEARS , K UNTIKANA MATH,
P.O. KUNTIKANA, VIA PERDA LA,
KASARAGOD K ERLA.
6. C.B. LAKSHMINARAYANA HEGDE
S/O LAT E BHEEMA IAH,
AGE: 63 YEARS , R/O: NO.71,
SHREEDHARA KRUPA,
3RD CROSS ,
NEAR GUJARATH BHAVAN,
DESHPANDE NAGA R,
HUBBALLI.
7. SHANKARA BHAT
S/O NARAYANA BHAT,
AGE: 51 YEARS ,
R/O: SKANDA RES IDENCY,
SHIVA NAGARA , T ENKILA,
NEAR BY PASS ROAD, PUTTUR,
DIST: UTTARA KA NNADA.
8. PATTE S UBRAHMA NYA BHAT
S/O NARASIMHA BHAT,
AGE: 60 YEARS , R/O: NO.1521,
B CROSS, SOUTH END,
JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK ,
BENGALURU.
9. BALAKRISHNA RAJ A NEERCHAL
S/O SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT,
AGE: 50 YEARS ,
DOOR NO.5, GROUND FLOOR,
5TH CROSS , BASEVESHWARA LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA,
BENGALURU.
10. SATHISH NETTAR
-3-
S/O VENKATRAMA NA BHAT,
AGE: 50 YEARS
NAVYA, PATTAJE,
BELLARE POST , S ULLIA,
DIST: UTTARA KA NNADA.
11. RAVIKUMAR
S/O SADANANDA K ONNUR (VA LIKAR) ,
AGE: 21 YEARS ,
R/O: J ORAPUR PET ,
BABALESHWAR NA KA,
VALIKAR HOUSE,
VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S .H.MITTALAKOD, ADVOCATE
AND SRI .M.L.VAN TI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUS E OFFI CER SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRES ENTED BY
HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. GANAPATI S/ O RA MAYYA HEGDE
AGE: 52 YEARS , OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANAJIBAI L, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 322.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S KULAKARNI , A GA FOR R1,
SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCA TE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., S EEKI NG TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEED INGS IN
PCR 35 OF 2017 (CRIME NO. 142 OF 2017 OF S IDDAPUR
POLI CE STATION , UTTARA KANNADA) PENDING ON FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AN D JMFC AT SIDDAPURA , UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFF ENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER S ECTIONS
153-A, 295-A , 298 AND 505 OF IPC, AS AGAIN ST THE
PETITIONERS .
-4-
IN CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.101446/ 2017
BETWEEN
1. MR. MAHABALESHWAR NARAYANA BHAT
S/O NARAYANA BHAT,
AGE: 75 YEARS ,
R/O: NO.1168-A GURUKRUPA ,
18 "C" MAIN, BEN GALURU-560 010.
2. MR.CHEMBARPU H SATHYANARAYAN BHAT
S/O SATYANARAYANA BHAT,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O" NO.3A , MARGOSA ROAD ,
SANTOSH A PARTMENT,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560 003.
3. MR.GOPALAKRISHNA RAO CHI PPA LI
AGE: 85 YEARS , R/O: CHIPPALI POS T,
VARDHAMALE, SA GAR,
SHIVAMOGGA DIS TRICT.
4. MR.EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT
S/O SHYAM BHAT, AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: NO.1791,
DHYANA 1ST MAIN ROAD ,
PIPELINE ROAD ,
T. DASARAHA LLI ,
BENGALURU- 560 057.
5. K.T. MAHABALA GI REI HEGADE
S/O THIMMAPPA HEGADE,
KANDIKA VILLAGE AND POST
SAGAR TALUKA,
SHIVAMOGGA- 577 401.
6. MR.TIAMMANNA BHAT SONDI BAYAR
S/O NARAYAN BHA T,
AGE: 80 YEARS ,
R/O: PARAMAGERU,
POST KATHARIN E VIA UPPA LA,
DK-574 212.
-5-
7. MR.SHANKAR BHA T G BELLARE
S/O NARAYANA BHAT,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: GUNDIGADD E,
BELLARE POST ,
SULLIA TALUK , D K-574 201.
8. MR.GOPALKRISHN A BHAT N ETTAR
S/O SUBRAJ BHAT,
AGE: 65 YEARS ,
UDAYAGIRI POST ,
BELLILA SULYA, D.K.
9. MR.MANJUNOATH H N
N NARAYANA RAO
R/O: POST HOSABALE VI LLAGE,
SORABA TA LUKA,
SHIVAMOGGA- 577 434.
10. JAIKRISHNA A K
S/O A . KES HAVA BHAT,
AGE: 52 YEARS ,
R/O: NO.61, 5TH MAIN,
POSTAL COLONY, SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560 094.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S .H.MITTALAKOD, ADVOCATE
AND SRI .M.L.VAN TI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUS E OFFI CER,
SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRES ENTED BY
HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. MR.ANANTH BHAT
S/O MAHABALESHWAR BHAT ,
AGE: 46 YEARS , R/O: KARAGOD,
-6-
POST: D ODDAMANE,
SIDDAPUR TALUK
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 322.
3. MRS.LATHA BHAT D/O SUBRAY HEGA DE,
AGE: 41 YEARS , R/O: SRI .GURUJYOT HI,
INDIRA NAGAR, SI DDAPUR ITALUK ,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 355.
4. MR.MANJAPPA BABU KANADE
AGE: 34 YEARS , R/O: DURGIGUDI,
POST: BILAGI , SIDDAPUR TALUK ,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 322.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S KULAKARNI , A GA FOR R1,
SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCA TE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., S EEKI NG TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEED INGS IN
PCR 30 OF 2017 (CRIME NO. 107 OF 2017 OF S IDDAPUR
POLI CE STATION , UK) PENDING ON FILE OF THE CIVI L JUDGE
AND JMFC AT SIDDAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER S ECTIONS 153 (A) , 295 (A),
298, 499, 500 AND 505 OF IPC, AS AGAI NST THE
PETITIONERS .
IN CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.101654/ 2017
BETWEEN
1. TIMMAPPA TIMMANNA HEGD E
AGE: 82 YEARS , R/O: KUMTA,
UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA.
2. ELINARAYANAPPA S V
S/O NARAYANAPPA , A GE: 78 YEARS ,
R/O: HANDIGOD ,
MALWE, T Q: SA GA R,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
3. SHARMA K M
AGE: 70 YEARS ,
R/O: OPP S UVIDHA BAJAR,
-7-
RAJENDRAPRASAD ROAD ,
TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
4. INDIRA MOHAN HEGDE
AGE: 65 YEARS ,
R/O: MG HAGRA ,
BEHIND RANGANN A KALYAN MANTAPPA,
AANEKOPPA, TQ: SAGAR,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
5. SADANAND SHARMA SAGAR PRA GNA BHARAT
S/O SADANANDA, AGE: 60 YEARS ,
SAGAR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA,
SHIVAMOGGA- 577 401.
6. ADAPATYA RAMACHANDRA
S/O SHIVARAMAIA H,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O: GOK ULAM,
POST: SAVAN UR,
PUTTUR TALUK , D K-574 212.
7. MAYURI W/O GAJ ANANA UPADYAYA ,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NO.19,
12TH CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR PI PELINE,
NEAR TEJA HOME,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
8. MR.KADSE ASHOK MURTHY
S/O GAN GA NAIK ,
SOORANAGADD E,
J.P. NAGARA , T Q: SAGAR,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
9. ASHWINIKUMAR S/O S .R. TIMMAPPA ,
AGE: 47 YEARS , R/O: ADWAITA,
OPPL SGMT CO. LT D.,
VINOBHA NA GAR,
TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
10. SHANTHARAMA HEGADEKATTE
S/O LAT E VENKAT RAMANA S HEGAD EKATTE,
AGE: 56 YEARS ,
-8-
R/O: NO.E7, 3RD FLOOR,
OAKYARD APARTM ENTS,
38TH CROSS, E EN D, C MAIN ROAD,
TILAK NAGAR, JAY ANAGARA,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S .H.MITTALAKOD, ADVOCATE
AND SRI .M.L.VAN TI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUS E OFFI CER,
SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRES ENTED BY
HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DAHRWAD.
2. MR.ANANTH BHAT
S/O MAHABALESHWAR BHAT ,
AGE: 46 YEARS , R/O: KARAGOD,
POST: D ODDAMANE,
SIDDAPUR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 322.
3. MRS.LATHA BHAT
D/O SUBRAY HEGA DE,
AGE: 41 YEARS ,
R/O: SRI .GURUJYOTHI,
INDIRA NAGAR,
SIDDAPUR TALUKA KANNADA,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 355.
4. MR.MANJAPPA BABU KANADE
AGE: 34 YEARS , R/O: DURGIGUDI,
POST: BILAGI ,
SIDDAPUR TALUKA KANNADA,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 322.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAKA S KULAKARNI, AGA FOR R1,
SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCA TE FOR R2 TO R4)
-9-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., S EEKI NG TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEED INGS IN
PCR 30 OF 2017 (CRIME NO. 107 OF 2017 OF SI DDAPURA
POLI CE STATION, UTTAR KANNADA) PENDING ON FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AN D JMFC AT SIDDAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFEN CES PUN ISHABLE UNDER SECTION
153 (A), 295(A) , 298, 499, 500 AND 505 OF IPC, AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS .
THESE CRIMINAL PETITONS HAVI NG BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED F OR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS' , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
Though the petitions are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioners/accused No.1 to 11 have filed Criminal Petition No.101655/2017 for quashing entire proceedings in PCR No.35/2017 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siddapura, Uttara Kannada (for short, 'trial Court') registered in Crime No.142/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298 and 505 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').
- 10 -
3. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101446/2017 are accused No.1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 and petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101654/2017 are accused No.2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are before this Court seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in PCR No.30/2017 pending on the file of the trial Court registered in Crime No.107/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 499, 500 and 505 of IPC registered against these petitioners.
4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.35/2017 before the trial Court against accused No.1 to 11 who are petitioners herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 295-A, 298, 153-A and 505 of IPC.
- 11 -
Respondents No.2 to 4 in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017 as complainants No.1 to 3 have filed the private complaint in PCR No.30/2017 before the trial Court against accused No.1 to 20 alleging commission of the offences as stated above.
5. In the complaint/s, the complainants have contended that they are ardent devotees of Sri.Ramachandrapura Mutt (for short, 'the Mutt') which is having its central office at Sirsi and branches across the State of Karnataka and also in other countries. It is stated that the Mutt is headed by the Pontiff His Holiness-Sri.Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji. The said Mutt is several centuries old and is the symbol of culture and tradition, set forth by the great religious leader Sri.Shankarcharya. The Mutt even though constitutes the edifice of belief and faith for Havyaka Brahmins, it got thousands of devotees
- 12 -
belonging to different caste, religion, creed and community. The Mutt is working for the upliftment of downtrodden and alleviation of poverty of all the persons in the society irrespective of their caste, religion and community. The Pontiff His Holiness- Sri.Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji is spearheading the objectives of the Mutt with several schemes and programs as he is the religious head. His Holiness- Sri.Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji is also undertaking campaign to safe the cow and established several Ghoshalas across the Karnataka State.
6. It is stated that the Pontiff is managing the affairs of the Mutt fairly in a transparent and diligent manner. Some members of Havyaka Brahmins community conspired to dethrone His Holiness- Sri.Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji from the seat of Matadipathi and hatched a plan to take over the control of the Mutt for the purpose of misusing the
- 13 -
funds. Therefore, the Pontiff was falsely implicated in a criminal case on baseless charges by filing a complaint in Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The same was came to be registered in S.C.No.1242/2015 before the learned District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. Since the allegations were baseless and the Pontiff was innocent, he was discharged vide order dated 31.03.2016.
7. It is further stated that a group of persons from Havyaka Brahmins community are making every possible efforts to tarnish the image of the Mutt in general and the image of the Pontiff in particular. Some of these accused persons belong to the said group making venomous attempts in distorting the character and image of the Pontiff. The complainants being the ardent devotees of the Mutt and the Pontiff are deeply hurt and pained by the publication of false information circulated by the accused through print
- 14 -
and social media. The act of the accused in spreading venomous campaign with false allegations against the Mutt and the Pontiff are unpardonable and goes a long way in hurting emotional bondage of the complainants with the Mutt and the Pontiff which creates irreparable damage to the feelings and faith of innumerable followers and devotees who are similarly placed with the complainants. The complainants and other devotees of the Mutt and the Pontiff are unable to withstand the disrespect shown by the accused by defaming the Mutt and the Pontiff alike. The conduct of the accused caused immense mental trauma and emotional dilemma to the complainants. The accused have stirred the faith and belief of the complainants reposed on the Mutt and the Pontiff. They are constantly indulging in making baseless and unreasonable allegations and claims in print and social media even after discharge of the Pontiff in the false
- 15 -
criminal case registered against him. It is stated that the accused are misusing the platform of print and social media to spread the false information about the Mutt and the Pontiff and they are continuously engaging to persuade thousands of devotees to show disrespect and defamation to the Mutt and the Pontiff. It is stated that the conduct of the accused is highly dangerous and affect the religious feelings of the complainants and other staunch devotees. If the accused are successful in shattering the image and reputation of the Pontiff that will result in shattering the reputation of the Mutt which is built through the belief of thousands of devotees and believers. Therefore, the accused are to be restrained from making further damages to the Mutt and also to the Pontiff.
8. It is stated that the accused have defamed the prestigious Mutt and its religious leader by
- 16 -
relentless publication of insulting articles and statement through leaflets, local community newspapers and social media, etc., and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The accused are making deliberate and malicious acts intending to outrage religious feelings of the complainants by insulting their religion, the Mutt and the Pontiff in whom they are having immense faith and belief. The act of the accused has resulted in causing injury and insult to the place of worship. The act of the accused is deliberate to injure the religious feeling and to promote enmity between the groups within the community. The accused are making false, malicious and mischievous campaign against the Mutt and the Pontiff and thereby they have committed offences punishable under Sections 295-A, 298, 153-A and 505 of IPC. Therefore, the complainants requested the trial Court to take
- 17 -
cognizance of the offences and to summon the accused to answer the charge.
9. It is stated that the trial Court referred both the matters for investigation to PSI of Siddapura Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the referring of complaint/s for investigation to the police, the accused are before this Court by filing three separate criminal petitions, seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court in PCR No.35/2017 which is registered in Crime No.142/2017 of Siddapura Police Station and PCR No.30/2017 which is registered in Crime No.107/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the above said offences.
10. Heard Sri.S.H.Mittalakod, learned counsel representing Sri.M.L.Vanti, for the petitioners, Sri.Vinayak S Kulakarni, learned Additional
- 18 -
Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Prashant F Goudar, learned counsel for other respondents.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused No.1 to 11 and they have not committed any offences as alleged. The complainant has come up with a false complaint making bald allegations. Even after going through the complaint in detail, no offence could be made out against these accused. Who committed the offence and in what manner is not at all explained by the complainant. No particulars such as date, time and place, etc. of any offences committed is furnished by the complainant to constitute offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 295-A, 298, 153-A or 505 of IPC. There must be specific averments in the complaint. Learned counsel also submitted that in
- 19 -
view of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. there is clear bar to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the police report. Since the complaint lacks details regarding commission of the offences and since the complaint is based on the bald and omnibus allegations, the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017 reiterating the argument addressed in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017, further contended that respondents No.2 to 4 as complainants No.1 to 3 have filed the private complaint before the trial Court. The complainants could not have filed the joint complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Such joint complaint which is not permitted under the Code is to be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel further submitted that to constitute an offence punishable under
- 20 -
Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, the person aggrieved should file complaint as required under Section 199 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, according to the complainants the aggrieved person is the Mutt or the Pontiff but they have not filed complaint. The complainants have not filed the complaint either on behalf of the Mutt or on behalf of the Pontiff. Under such circumstances, the complaint is to be dismissed in limine.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017 opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offences mentioned above. Accused No.1 to 11 have formed Whatsapp group and are exchanging messages with an intention to damage the reputation of the Mutt and the Pontiff. The conduct the accused is affecting the dignity and honour of the
- 21 -
Mutt and the Pontiff alike. On consideration of the averments made in the complaint, the trial Court rightly referred the matter for investigation. Since there was interim stay granted by this Court, investigation could not be undertaken. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition in limine as the same is devoid of merits.
14. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017 reiterating the argument addressed in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017, further submitted that Section 199 of Cr.P.C. do not bar filing of joint complaint. On the other hand, the reference made in Section 199(1) of Cr.P.C. 'some person aggrieved' by the offence means and includes any person who is aggrieved by the act of defamation committed by the accused. In this regard, the learned counsel placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in Vishwanath
- 22 -
alias Vishu Phaniraj Gopi Bhat vs. State of Karnataka, Through Gokarna Police Station and Another 1 and contended that such complaint alleging defamation could be filed not only by the person defamed but also by an Institution or a representative of the Institution who is aggrieved by such defamation. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petitions as devoid of merits.
15. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State in all the petitions submitted that the private complaint/s filed before the trial Court were referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The FIR in Crime Nos.142/2017 and 107/2017 are registered for the above said offences. However, since the interim order of stay was in operation, the investigation could not 1 2020 SCC Online KAR 501
- 23 -
be undertaken. Under such circumstances, he prays for passing appropriate orders in the matter.
16. Perused the materials on record. In the light of the rival submissions made by the counsel, the following points would arise for my consideration:
"1. Whether the entire proceedings in PCR No.35/2017 registered in Crime No.142/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298 and 505 of IPC are to be quashed in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017?
2. Whether the entire proceedings in PCR No.30/2017 registered in Crime No.107/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 499, 500 and 505 of IPC are to be quashed in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017?"
17. My answer to the above points is in the 'affirmative' for the following:
- 24 -
REASONS
18. The first contention raised by the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017 to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings is on the ground that the joint compliant cannot be maintained under the Code. It is contended that since under Section 199 of Cr.P.C. it is only the aggrieved person who can file the complaint against the accused alleging defamation, a group of persons cannot file and maintain such complaint/s. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in the above said criminal petitions opposing such contention, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Vishwanath (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court formulated several questions for consideration. One of them is as to whether a complaint/s for defamation can only be filed by a person defamed or can it also be filed by an Institution or a representative of the
- 25 -
Institution so alleged to be defamed. The Court while answering this question held in para No.56 as under:
"56. In view of the above discussion I answer point No.vi above by holding that a complaint for defamation can not only be filed by a person defamed but can also be filed by an institution or a representative of the institution so alleged to be defamed."
19. It is interesting to note that the learned counsel for the petitioners himself relied on the decision of this Court in Sri.Haridas Naik and Others vs. Hanchinamane Gadriyappa and Others 2 to contend that joint complaint is not maintainable. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered similar issue raised in the said case as to whether joint complaint filed by two or more persons is maintainable or not and categorically held as under: 2
ILR 2010 KAR 3529
- 26 -
"10. ......... I am of the considered opinion that though the complaint in the instant case is filed by two persons jointly, all further proceedings pursuant thereto cannot be quashed on ground only that a joint complaint is not envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainants deserve an opportunity to choose as to who of them would continue to prosecute the said complaint as complainant."
20. Therefore, even if it is held that joint complaint could not be maintained, an option is to be given to the complainant to choose as to who of them would continue to prosecute the complaint as complainant.
21. The next question that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the bald and omnibus allegations contained in the complaint/s which do not constitute any of the offences as alleged. In this regard, I have gone through the averments made in the complaint/s. The
- 27 -
complainants only say that some members of Havyaka Brahmin community are conspiring to dethrone the Pontiff and hatched a plan for misusing the funds of the Mutt. They are making false allegations against the Pontiff and in furtherance of their conspiracy a false complaint was came to be lodged against the Pontiff which was finally registered in S.C.No.1242/2015 before the District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the Pontiff was discharged by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further stated that some of the people belonging to fringe group are making venomous attempts to defame the Mutt as well as the Pontiff. It is also stated that the accused have undertaken venomous campaign to damage the image and authority of the Pontiff which is unpardonable. They are hurting the emotional bondage of the complainants with the Mutt and the Pontiff. They are causing irreparable damage to the feelings and the
- 28 -
faith of innumerable followers and devotees of the Mutt. The accused have caused immense mental trauma and emotional dilemma to the complainants. The accused are constantly indulged in making baseless and unreasonable allegations in print and social media by misusing such platforms to spread the false information against the Mutt and the Pontiff. The act of the accused is said to be dangerous and it constitute the offences as alleged.
22. Even though several provisions of IPC are quoted, no specific allegations are made against any of the accused or against them jointly. Except saying that the accused are making baseless allegations, spreading false information, etc. not even a single incident or instance is quoted by the complainants to constitute the offences alleged by them. When bald and omnibus allegations are made against the accused which do not constitute an offence by itself, the Court
- 29 -
cannot proceed on the presumption that the accused have committed the offences which were meant by the complainants. The complainants are required to make out prima facie case against the accused to constitute the offences alleged. Unless there is sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the Courts cannot proceed blindly either while referring the matter for investigation or while taking cognizance of the offences.
23. Under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. to order for an investigation by police officer. Under Section 191 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint on facts which constitute such offence; or upon a police report; or upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
- 30 -
Ofcourse, while acting under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate will not take cognizance of the offence, but however he is required to apply his mind for ordering an investigation under the Code. Unless the case is fit to be proceeded further, the Magistrate could not have referred it for investigation to the police. When the specific allegations regarding commission of the offences is lacking in the complaint/s, any amount of evidence collected during investigation will not cure the defect.
24. It is the settled proposition of law that there must be some semblance of case made out in the complaint/s apart from making allegations to constitute the offences. When no prima facie averments are placed before the Court to constitute the offences at the initial stage, the Magistrate is not bound to refer the matter for investigation for the
- 31 -
purpose of collecting the evidence or the materials, without there being a foundation.
25. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 during the course of his argument contended that the petitioners being accused have formed a Whatsapp group and are circulating the messages to defame the reputation of the Mutt and the Pontiff. It is specifically stated that forwarding of messages between the accused and other persons is with malicious intention and it is affecting the dignity and honour of the Mutt as well as the Pontiff.
26. I have gone through the entire complaint/s filed by the complainants. There is not even a whisper regarding these acts committed by the accused. Simply because there is reference in the complaint/s that the accused are using print and social media to spread false information, the contention now taken by
- 32 -
the learned counsel for respondents cannot be related to it. Moreover, it is very strange to note as to what is the word actually uttered or the message circulated is not forthcoming even after going through the complaint/s in entirety. Who sent the message to whom it was sent and what was the message sent is not forthcoming in the complaint/s. What is the nature of the conspiracy hatched by these accused is also not made clear in the complaint/s. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused have committed any of the offences alleged against them including the offence of defamation.
27. The offence alleged against the accused are all of serious nature. There must be prima facie allegation to constitute such an offence. Making bald and omnibus allegations like the one we find in the complaint/s is not sufficient for the Magistrate to proceed to refer the matter for investigation under
- 33 -
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioners regarding want of details to constitute the offences alleged in the complaint/s. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a futile attempt on the part of the complainants to bring the accused to books for the offences alleged. No purpose would be served by holding an investigation or an inquiry.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others 3 has discussed at length about the jurisdiction of the Court to act under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and held as under:
"23(xv). When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a 3 AIR 2021 SC 1918
- 34 -
cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
29. From the averments made in the complaint/s, no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed for the Court to permit investigation. When the complaint/s lack prima facie materials to proceed against the accused, continuance of such complaint/s would be an abuse of process of the Court which calls for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitions are to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above points in affirmative.
30. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:
- 35 -
ORDER Criminal Petition Nos.101655/2017, 101446/2017 and 101654/2017 are allowed.
The criminal proceedings in PCR No.35/2017 registered in Crime No.142/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298 and 505 of IPC in Criminal Petition No.101655/2017 are quashed.
The criminal proceedings in PCR No.30/2017 registered in Crime No.107/2017 of Siddapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 499, 500 and 505 of IPC in Criminal Petition Nos.101446/2017 and 101654/2017 are also quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sh