Karnataka High Court
Smt Surekha Sampath Raj vs Sri M P Eregowda on 28 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29055
CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1459 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT SUREKHA SAMPATH RAJ,
AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O SAMPATH RAJ,
R/AT HIREKOLALE ROAD,
UPPALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577013.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT SOHANI HOLLA, AMICUS CURIAE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M P EREGOWDA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
ASSISTANT TEACHER (DEPUTATION),
HPS URDU SCHOOL,
Digitally HALENAHALLI, RAMANAHALLI,
signed by C CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577013.
HONNUR
SAB 2. THE STATE - THROUGH THE
Location: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HIGH COURT RURAL POLICE STATION,
OF CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577013,
KARNATAKA CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2,
SRI D C JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29055
CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.02.2015 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGLURU IN
C.C.NO.313/2009 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO HOLDING
ACCUSED NO.1/PETR. HEREIN GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE U/S
500 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HER TO PAY COMPENSATION TO
THE COMPLAINANT/P.W-1 U/S 357 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IN A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.32/2015, CONFIRMING THE
CONVICTION OF THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 500 OF IPC
AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE
U/S 500 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition is against the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
3. In terms of the judgment dated 18.02.2009, petitioner-accused No.1 is convicted for an offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under Section 501(b), 143, 147, 186, 504, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and compensation for -3- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR Rs.1.00 lakh is awarded in favour of complainant by exercising power under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The rest of the accused Nos. 2 to 8, were acquitted.
4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, accused No.1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.32/2015.
5. It is noticed that there were three appeals against the aforementioned judgment in C.C.No.313/2009 on the file of the I Additional JMFC, Chickamagalur. Appeal in appeal No.32/2015 is filed by accused No.1, Appeal in Crl.A.No.42/2015 is by the complainant, and Appeal in Crl.A.No.56/2015 is by accused No.1 and also one Sampathraj. It is noticed that Sampathraj is not the accused in C.C.No.313/2009.
6. In terms of the judgment dated 25.10.2016, Criminal Appeal No.56/2015 under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Crl.A.No.32/2015 filed by accused No.1 is allowed-in-part and accused No.1 was acquitted of all charges under Sections 143, 147, 186, 501, 504 and 506 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR read with Section 149 IPC. However, the judgment is confirmed in respect of an offence under Section 500 IPC against accused No.1, and the appeal filed by the complainant in Crl.A.No.42/2015 under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, and the order of acquittal against accused 2 to 8 passed by the JMFC in C.C.No.313/2009 is confirmed. The complainant has not filed any revision petition against dismissal of his appeal.
7. Learned amicus appearing for the petitioner would submit that the appeal is now only confined to the conviction for the offence under Section 500 Cr.P.C.
8. It is her submission that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have convicted accused No.1 on the premise that the newspaper publication published against the complainant has lowered complainant's reputation in the estimation of the public. It is urged that the news paper publication has nothing to do with accused No.1 and there is nothing on record to link the news paper publication with accused No.1. Without any evidence to hold that news paper -5- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR publications are based on the statement given by the petitioner/accused No.1 or at the instigation of petitioner - accused No.1, Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have convicted accused No.1 for an offence under Section 500 IPC.
9. It is also submitted that the complainant has not chosen to file a defamation case against the editor, publisher and the reporter of the aforementioned newspaper. Appellate Court and the Trial Court, without any complaint against the newspaper editors, could not have held that the alleged report in the newspaper has defamed the complainant.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent- complainant would submit that Ex.P.3 is the complaint lodged by accused No.1 against the complainant before the Block Development Officer, and there accused No.1 made a wild allegation, stating that there is a possibility of the complainant attending the school under the influence of alcohol. It is also stated in Ex.P.3, that the complainant, on -6- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR 26.11.2008, used abusive language in the school premises in front of the people who had gathered to protest the alleged conduct of the complainant. Thus, complainant would contend that Ex.P.3 would sufficiently establish the guilt of the petitioner, as Ex.P.3 is not disputed by the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant would submit that because of the complaint filed by the petitioner and the newspaper publication, his reputation is lowered, and after noticing the fact that the charges are proved, the Trial Court has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh. It is his further submission that in the domestic enquiry, charges levelled against the complainant are held to be not proved and thereby, the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Block Education Officer is proved to be a false complaint and this being the position, the award of Rs.1.00 lakh towards fine is appropriate and there is no reason to interfere with the said order imposing fine of Rs.1.00 lakh in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397 of Cr.P.C. and no case is made out to interfere with the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR concurrent finding relating to the proof of charges under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also defend the impugned judgments.
13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
14. Ex.P.3 is not disputed. It is the complaint lodged by the petitioner-accused on 26.11.2008, and it is addressed to the Block Education Officer. In the said complaint, it is stated that there is a possibility that the present respondent is likely to attend the school under the influence of alcohol. It is also stated in the complaint dated 26.11.1008 that the petitioner used abusive language in front of the public who gathered before the school authorities. In the said letter, a request is made to the Block Education Officer to take appropriate action against the petitioner.
15. The newspapers marked would reveal that the articles are published against the complainant, stating that he has committed theft of groceries meant for school -8- NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR children. It is noticed that in the newspaper publications marked at Exs.P.9 to 13, the editors have published an apology for having published articles against the complainant. The apology published relates to the news reporting alleged theft of groceries by the complainant.
16. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have primarily relied on the said documents to conclude that the complainant's reputation is lowered on account of false publication. It has also been noted by the Courts that the allegation of theft of groceries against the complainant is not established in the domestic enquiry. Thus, holding that there is a false publication of news against the complaint, which, according to the Trial Court, lowered the reputation of the complainant, the Court concluded that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under Section 500 IPC.
17. It is relevant to notice that there is nothing on record to link the paper publications to the act of the accused-petitioner.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR
18. There is no acceptable evidence to hold that the newspapers are published because of the information or instructions by the petitioner. It has not come in evidence that the petitioner has furnished the information to the newspaper publishers to publish an article against the complainant/ respondent.
19. This being the position, assuming that the newspaper articles are per se defamatory and they have lowered the reputation of the complainant/respondent, it cannot be concluded that it is on account of the act of the petitioner-accused. In the absence of any positive evidence to attribute the newspaper publications to the petitioner, this Court is unable to accept that the petitioner is responsible for the defamatory articles published against the complainant/ respondent. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Courts below.
20. It is also required to notice that the defamation case is not filed on the premise that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint against the Block Education Officer.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR This aspect is not noticed by the Courts below. The defamation case is based on news paper articles. The complaint and charge sheet in respect of other offences are held to be not proved by both Courts and though the complainant filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in respect of other charges, said appeal is dismissed.
21. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgment dated 25.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.32/2015 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur is set aside.
(iii) Impugned judgment dated 15.02.2009 in CC No.313/2009 on the file of First Additional JMFC, Chikkamagalur is set aside.
(iv) Petitioner/accused No.1 is acquitted.
(v) Bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29055 CRL.RP No. 1459 of 2016 HC-KAR
(vi) Registry shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42