Karnataka High Court
Rev Father Francis Rodrigues vs Mr G Andrew Richard on 18 January, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7118 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
REV. FR. GEORGE THOMAS D'SOUZA
S/O MR. CYPRIAN D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS A CHIEF MANAGER,
KODIALBAIL PRESS
KONCHADY POST,
MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 575 008
NOW WORKING AS A PARISH PRIEST AT
ST. LAWRENCE CHURCH, ATTUR NORTH POST,
KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REV. DR. G. ANDREW RICHARD
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O MR. XAVIOR GOKULA,
"CELESTE APARTMENTS",
MERCARA HILL ROAD,
BENDORE, MANGALORE - 575 002.
2. MR. A. ISAAC RICHARD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O REV. DR. G. ANDREW RICHARD
2
"CELESTE APARTMENTS",
MERCARA HILL ROAD,
BENDORE,
MANGALORE - 575 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NISHIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.09.2012 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL JMFC
MANGALURU IN REGISTERING THE CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.
NO.2521/2012 AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE
ACCUSED NO.7 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 500, 501 AND 502
OF THE IPC AND THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO
THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, who is the Manager of Konanki weekly newspaper and six other accused alleging that an article was published in the said daily newspaper making defamatory statement against the complainant 3 and his son. The jurisdictional Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused.
2. Being aggrieved, accused No.5 filed Criminal Petition No.7329/2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 26.04.2019 quashed the proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Magistrate holding that the statement, even if accepted on its face value does not Constitute an offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC and also do not contain any defamatory statement attributable by accused No.5 and publication of the circular by accused therein by itself cannot amount to defamation in the absence of any material to show that the contents thereof contain imputations intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. Hence, this petition.
4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the instance of accused No.5, the proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7329/2012 is quashed and as such, the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner is also required to be quashed since he is the Manager of the daily newspaper and as such, the alleged defamatory statement against the complainant is not attributable to the petitioner herein.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainants would submit that the proceedings against accused No.5 was quashed on the ground that he had the authority to prevent unauthorized preaching and as such, the petitioner, who is the Manager of the daily news paper stands on the different footing as well as he submits that the present criminal petition is not 5 maintainable and he cannot take the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7329/2012.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The relevant paragraph of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal petition No.7329/2012 is reproduced below:-
"The only statement made in this regard in the sworn statement reads ¢:10.4.2012 gÀAzÀÄ 5£Éà DgÉÆæ C¯ÉÆòAiÀĸï r¸ÉÆÃeÁgÀªÀgÀÄ J¹¦ dUÀ£ÁßxïgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£ÀºÁ¤PÀgÀªÁzÀ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸À°è¹ £Á£ÀÄ PÉæöʸÀÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀªÀjUÉ C£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV £Á£ÀÄ CzsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀåQÛ JAzÀÄ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV ºÀt UÀ½¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. CzÉà jÃw zÉêÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß §gÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉæöʸÀÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£Àß §UÉÎ CªÀºÉüÀ£ÀPÁjAiÀiÁV §gÀºU À À¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸À°è¹zÁÝgÉ." This statement even if accepted on its face value does not satisfy the requirement of Section 499 Indian Penal Code. The sworn statements of the complainants also do not contain any 6 defamatory statement attributable to the petitioner. The publication of the circular by the petitioner by itself cannot amount to defamation without any material to show that the contents thereof contain imputations intending to harm the reputation of the complainants. In the absence of such material, the learned Magistrate has committed serious error in issuing summons to the petitioner. On considering the entire material on record, I am of the clear opinion that the prosecution launched against the petitioner and the summons issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner to face charges for the alleged offence under Section 499 punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 Indian Penal Code are wholly illegal, baseless and utter abuse of process of Court. As a result, petition deserves to be allowed.
7. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph indicates that the statement made against the complainant, if accepted on the face value does not Constitute an offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC and also do not contain any defamatory statement attributable to the 7 petitioner herein. Further, the publication of the statement by the petitioner itself cannot amount to defamation without any material to show that the contents thereof contain imputations intending to harm the reputation of the complainants. When accused No.5 who is the author of the article is exonerated, the impugned proceeding cannot be continued against the petitioner since it will be a futile exercise subjecting the petitioner to a trial. As a result, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
2. Impugned order dated 13.09.2012 passed by 3rd Additional JMFC, Mangalore taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC and issuing summons to the petitioner herein and the 8 proceedings in C.C. No.2521/2012 and PCR No.111/2012 pending on the file of 3rd Additional JMFC Court, Mangalore are hereby quashed insofar it relates to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM