Karnataka High Court
Hemavathi Rajaram vs Ambar Mitra on 23 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38431
CRL.P No. 706 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 706 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. HEMAVATHI RAJARAM
W/O PREETHAM SHANBHAG
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. PREETHAM SHANBHAG
S/O PANDURANG ANNAPPA SHANBHAG
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3. PRANDURANG A. SHANBHAG
S/O LATE ANNAPPA SHANBHAG
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
ALL THE ABOVE ARE
R/AT VILLA NO.73, RBD, STILLWATERS
HARALUR, BANGALORE-560102.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. AJAY KADKOL .T, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. AMBAR MITRA
S/O LATE PRADYAT K.R. MITRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT VILLA NO.74, RBD
STILLWATERS, HARALUR
BANGALORE-560102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38431
CRL.P No. 706 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2023 IN C.C.NO.30739/2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY
AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-1 AND 2) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.30739/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
2. The gist of the private complaint instituted by the respondent/complainant is as under:
The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners published a defamatory statement in the Prajavani newspaper. It is further alleged that the petitioners circulated false and frivolous emails among community members, with the intention of tarnishing the reputation of the complainant. In paragraph 19 of the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR private complaint, it is specifically asserted that the petitioners were responsible for publishing an article in Prajavani that was defamatory per se.
3. The learned Magistrate, on considering the complaint and material on record, has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioners are not the authors of the impugned publication. It is contended that the editor of the newspaper has not been arraigned as an accused, and hence, the proceedings are vitiated for non-joinder of a necessary party. It is further urged that the private complaint under Section 200 IPC for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC is nothing but a -4- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR counterblast to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (u) and (z) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The counsel submits that, after a 'B' report was filed on the complaint of petitioner No.1, the respondent, with a false narrative unsupported by any evidence, has instituted the present proceedings. Even if the contents of the impugned article are taken at face value, there is no material linking its publication to the petitioners. It appears that the article was published only in the context of the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 alleging atrocities, and the contents of such complaint, as published, do not attract the ingredients of Section 499 IPC.
5. On the aspect of procedural infirmities, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the examination-in- chief of the complainant cannot be recorded by way of an -5- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR affidavit. Therefore, the order taking cognizance based on a defective sworn statement vitiates the entire proceedings. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, it is submitted that there is no material whatsoever to proceed against them. Petitioner No.3 had only issued a legal notice to the employer of the complainant reporting the incident, and, in any event, a settlement agreement has been entered into, thereby rendering the allegations unsustainable.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, referring to paragraph 14 of the complaint, submits that specific allegations are made even against petitioners 2 and 3; hence, the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Srinivas Narasimhan v. Narasaraja Bhattar (Crl P No.3193/2017), it is argued that even if the sworn statement is defective, the proper course would be to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR remit the matter to the Magistrate for recording a fresh sworn statement. As regards petitioner No.1, it is contended that he was the person who informed the editor of the newspaper about the incident, and the article, being defamatory per se, furnishes sufficient material to proceed against him. Hence, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments:
1. M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthy, (2009) SCC 101
2. Sri. K. Eshwarappa v. Sri. B. Vindod, Crl.P.No.6531/ 2021, Karnataka High Court [Decided on 06.10.2023]
3. Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi, (1996) 6 SCC 263
4. Balraj Khanna & Ors. v. Moti Ram, 1971(3) SCC 399
5. M.N.Damani v. S.K. Sinha & Ors.,(2001)5 SCC 156 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., (2010)6 SCC 243
7. Chaman Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1970(1)SCC 590
8. Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 4 SCC 432
9. Deepak Gaba & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2023) 3 SCC 423
10. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 139
11. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 139.
8. Before this Court delves into the matter, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant contents of the private complaint to ascertain whether there is any material against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 499 of Cr.P.C. Paras 6 to 8 would be relevant and the same are extracted as under:
"6. The Complainant and Accused are residents of RBD Stillwaters, Silver County Road, Haralur Road, Bangalore-560102. The Accused are -8- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR the neighbors of the Complainant and the parties share a common compound wall.
7. The Accused have been causing trouble to the residents of RBD Stillwaters, including the Complainant herein, since 2019-2020. The Accused used to park their vehicles on the road and create a blockade. When the Estate Manager requested the Accused to not create such blockades, the Accused abused the Complainant and the Estate Manager of RBD Stillwaters.
8. Further, the Accused had encroached upon the Complainant's house and put up a rain water channel which is causing a huge problem to the Complainant. Similarly, the Accused have planted samplings in such a way that the branches are protruding into the Complainant's property and the branches are shedding leaves in the Complainant's property."
On perusal of the extracted portion of the records, it is evident that the petitioners/accused and the respondent/complainant are neighbours, and there exist disputes between them regarding the parking of vehicles and the water channel set up by the petitioners for -9- NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR draining rainwater, which is alleged to encroach upon the complainant's property.
9. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the complaint, being relevant to the controversy, are reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"10) The Accused had resorted to tarnishing the reputation of Complainants by writing false and frivolous e-mails and WhatsApp messages to the community members, which are entirely defamatory in nature. In the WhatsApp Group of the villa residents, in the context of an incident faced by some other resident, the Accused No.1 has made the following defamatory remarks against the Complainant and his wife herein -
(i) "This is supposed to be a secured layout. But people stealing flowers and fruits to groups of strange men stranding men standing on the front yard, everything is happening around here!";
(ii) "I and my family also are victims of atrocious behaviour and hooliganism by the neighbour and we have registered an FIR against them."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR The allegations that "people are stealing flowers" and that the Accused are victims of "atrocious behaviour and hooliganism of the neighbour" are a direct reference to the Complainant and his wife. Printout of the e-mails (Colly) and screenshots of WhatsApp messages (Colly) are produced herewith as Document Nos.4 & 5, respectively.
11. The Accused No.3, with the intention of causing injury to the reputation of Complainant, issued a legal notice dated 09.06.2020 to the Complainant, his wife and also to the employer of Complainant based on false allegations that the Complainant is using police force on the Accused through the employer of Complainant. Since the Complainant is aggrieved by the legal notice in its entirety, specific contents of the notice are not extracted herein. The allegations made in the said notice are entirely false and were not made in good faith whatsoever as the same were intended to wreak vengeance on the Complainant. Even otherwise, the dispute between the Complainant and the Accused had nothing to do with the employment of the Complainant. However, the said legal notice was also issued to the employer of Complainant with a mala fide intention of damaging the reputation and career prospects of the Complainant. Original legal notice dated 09.06.2020 is produced herewith as Document No.6.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. Owing to the allegations made in the legal notice, Complainant was questioned by his then superior in the organization for the alleged misconduct by using the name of the organization. Because of the said imputations made by the Accused before the residents of the society and also before the employer of the Complainant, the reputation of the Complainant and his wife had lowered in the eyes of both fronts i.e., personally and the society professionally." The above-extracted paragraphs reveal that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant escalated further owing to the exchange of messages in WhatsApp groups and alleged emails concerning civil disputes relating to the compound.
10. I shall now proceed to examine the core issue which prompted the complainant to file the present private complaint. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the complaint, being material for this purpose, are reproduced herein below:
"19. It is important to state here that, subsequent registration of the FIR in Crime No.126/2021, a news article was published on 21.10.2021 in a prominent local newspaper i.e., Prajavani, in relation to the said FIR. The
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR statements of Accused No.1 in the said article that " ಾ ಹ ಣರು ಾ ಸುವ ಪ ೇಶದ ಪ ಷ ಾ ಯವರು ಾ ಸ ಾರದು ಎಂದು ೇರ ಾ ೕ !ತ#ವ$ ಜಗಳ (ೆ)ೆದು *ಾನ ಕ -ಂ.ೆ /ೊಡು 2 ಾ34ೆ' ಎಂದು ದೂರು !ೕ5ರುವ 6ೇ*ಾವ 4ಾ ಾ4ಾಂ ಆ4ೋ8 ಾ34ೆ" and "9:ಾ ೊಳ)ೆ ಸ;ೆ ಸ*ಾರಂಭಗಳ= ನ>ೆ ಾಗ ಾ 6ೆಸರು -5ದು ಅವ*ಾ!ಸುತ2:ೇ ಬಂA ಾ34ೆ" are entirely false and misleading. The said news article, containing false and misleading statement, was published at the instance of the Accused with the intention of defaming and destroy the reputation of the Complainants. Original newspaper published by Prajavani on 21.10.2021 containing the said defamatory article is produced herewith as Document No.14. After reading the said news article, the family members and well-wishers of the Complainant have expressed their displeasure and looked down upon the Complainant and his wife. As such, the said news article, which was published at the instance of the Accused, had a cascading effect on the lives of the Complainant and his wife.
20. Not stopping there, the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 cast aspersions on the Complainant and his wife before the residents of the Society by falsely stating that the Complainant and his wife ill treat people belonging to SC/ST Community; that the Complainant and his wife don't let people belonging to SC/ST Community inside their house; that the Complainant and his wife abused and ill-treated the Accused as they belong to SC/ST Community. Believing the accusations to be true,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR residents in the area stopped interacting with the Complainant and his wife until recently. Further, the Complainant and his wife were adjudged guilty even before the proceedings in Crime No.126/2021 concluded."
11. On a careful reading of paragraphs 19 and 20 extracted supra, it is evident that, although the complainant has attempted to set up a case against the petitioners for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 499 of the IPC, the material placed on record does not disclose the essential ingredients of the said provision. The complainant alleges that the impugned article in the Prajavani newspaper was published at the instance of petitioner No.1. However, the article, on its plain reading, does not reveal that it emanated from petitioner No.1 or was caused to be published by him. The tenor of the article indicates that it was based on a complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 before the jurisdictional police, alleging atrocities committed by the complainant and his family members. Significantly, the complainant has not initiated any proceedings against the editor, printer or publisher of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR the newspaper who were directly responsible for the publication. This circumstance, when viewed in the backdrop of the fact that petitioner No.1 had earlier reported an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the complainant's family, suggests that the article was an incidental reportage of that complaint, rather than a publication set in motion by petitioner No.1.
12. The records further disclose that there are civil litigations pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court. It appears that the filing of a complaint by petitioner No.1 reporting acts of atrocities by the complainant has triggered retaliatory proceedings, culminating in the present private complaint. To constitute the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, three essential requirements must be satisfied:
(i) the imputation must be defamatory, i.e., it must lower the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR
(ii) the imputation must refer to or concern the aggrieved person; and (iii) it must be published with intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the aggrieved person.
13. The Supreme Court, in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, while upholding the constitutionality of Section 499, emphasised that mens rea intention or knowledge to cause harm is a sine qua non for the offence of defamation. Similarly, in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, (1981) 3 SCC 208, the Apex Court held that the burden lies on the complainant to show that the accused was responsible for the publication and acted with malice. In the present case, neither the complaint nor the material produced discloses any nexus between the petitioners and the publication of the article. The complainant has not shown that the petitioners authorised, procured or participated in the publication, or that they acted with malice or knowledge that the publication would harm the complainant's reputation.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR
14. The extracted portions placed on record unmistakably reveal that there is considerable acrimony between the parties. The article itself attributes its source to the statement of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shri Kishore Bharani, indicating that the news report was based on official information concerning the registration of a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is no material to suggest that petitioner No.1 played any role in causing the publication. Being a member of a Scheduled Caste, petitioner No.1 had a statutory right to lodge a complaint when he believed an offence under the Atrocities Act had been committed. The mere fact that a 'B' report was later filed does not retrospectively convert the act of lodging a complaint into an offence of defamation. As held by the Supreme Court in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, criminal prosecution for defamation cannot be used to stifle the right of a person to report an offence or express
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR grievances unless a clear case of malice and unlawful publication is made out.
15. It also appears from the article that the registration of a crime on the basis of petitioner No.1's complaint was intimated by the jurisdictional police officer, which is why the matter was reported in the newspaper. In the absence of any prima facie material demonstrating that the petitioners were the authors, instigators or publishers of the alleged defamatory material, the essential ingredients of Section 499 IPC are not satisfied. Consequently, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law. Since this Court has concluded that the complaint itself does not disclose the basic elements of the offence, it is unnecessary to advert to the procedural irregularities urged in relation to the recording of the sworn statement.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:38431 CRL.P No. 706 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 30739/2023, pending before the Court of the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, arising out of the private complaint filed by the respondent, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64