Back
Karnataka High Court
S.P.Bobati - Appellant
Versus
Mahadev Virupaxappa Latti - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-04
CRI.PETN. : 2136 of 2004
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
Sections 397(3) and 482 - Exercise of inherent powers -Bar under Section 397(3) -Exercise of Inherent powers -when can be undertaken.
[S. B. Majage J]: Even after dismissal of revision petition by the Sessions Judge, this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though, of course, it requires to be exercised sparingly. Even a plain reading of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. also shows that there is no limit on the powers of this Court to invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. inspite of dismissal of a revision petition by the court of sessions.
Cases Referred: ILR 199 Kar 835; 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545; 1997(1) Supreme 628; Cel. P. No. 575/1996 dated 11-7-1997; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1121; 1981 Crl. L.J. 1208; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1283; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1922; 1997 Crl. L.J. 212; AIR 1976 SC 1947; AIR 1986 SC 833: 1997 SCC (Cri) 415; 2001 SCC (Cri) 1583; ILR 2002 Kar 4297; 2004 SAR (Cri) 457; 2004 SCC (Cri) 816; 2004 (2) Crimes 310; AIR 1998 SC 2115; 1981 Crl. L.J. 894; Cr. A. Nos. 18, 53 and 54 of 1972 dated 4-9-1972 (Manu/Sc/0119/1972; Cr. A. Nos. 289/1962 dated 2-8-1963 (Manu/KE0063/1965) 2003(1) 41 Crl.L.R.; ILR 1998 Kar 3599; 2004 (9) Scale 177.
Imputation
WORDS AND PHRASES - Imputation -It implies an allegation of fact and not merely a term of abuse.
Quashing of proceedings
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
Section 482 -Quashing of proceedings- when inherent powers can be exercised for.
[S. B. Majage J]: It is well settled that u/s.482 of Cr.PC., it is the duty of the court to quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court when a prima facie case is not made out for an offence for which process has been issued. So, the proceedings initiated by the complainant for the offences alleged require to be quashed.
Cases Referred: ILR 199 Kar 835; 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545; 1997(1) Supreme 628; Cel. P. No. 575/1996 dated 11-7-1997; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1121; 1981 Crl. L.J. 1208; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1283; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1922; 1997 Crl. L.J. 212; AIR 1976 SC 1947; AIR 1986 SC 833: 1997 SCC (Cri) 415; 2001 SCC (Cri) 1583; ILR 2002 Kar 4297; 2004 SAR (Cri) 457; 2004 SCC (Cri) 816; 2004 (2) Crimes 310; AIR 1998 SC 2115; 1981 Crl. L.J. 894; Cr. A. Nos. 18, 53 and 54 of 1972 dated 4-9-1972 (Manu/SC/0119/1972; Cr. A. Nos. 289/1962 dated 2-8-1963 (Manu/KE0063/1965) 2003(1) 41 Crl.L.R.; ILR 1998 Kar 3599; 2004 (9) Scale 177.
Defamation
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 499 - Defamation -Abusive words -When amounts to defamation.
[S. B. Majage J]: The words used in the representations that was "wrongly guided" and "wrongly informed" were for making complaint against the Assistant or Deputy Director of Land Records and not about giving any wrong legal advice, or guiding, or informing Shinde about the case touching complainant s capacity, or ability, or knowledge, or honesty, or sincerity as an Advocate. Similarly, other words "irrelevant argument", "abusive language", "indecent behaviour", "baseless allegations refer the submissions made and attitude of the complainant in the proceedings before the Assistant or Deputy Director of Land Records. The said words or language found could be said to have been used loosely or in wrong taste. Further, the said words cannot be said to be abusive words. Even if taken as abusive words, mere allegation that the accused had used abusive words or language cannot be taken to hold that the accused had used abusive words or language as the actual word(s) of abuse or abusive language is not spelled out. So also, when neither the abusive words nor the words, which could tantamount to insult are spelled out in the complaint or in the sworn statement of the complainant, it cannot be said that by any insulting abusive words^ defamed the complainant. It is well settled that mere use of abusive word(s) does not per se constitute defamation unless it could be construed as defamatory in nature in the given circumstances of a case.
Cases Referred: ILR 199 Kar 835; 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545; 1997(1) Supreme 628; Cel. P. No. 575/1996 dated 11-7-1997; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1121; 1981 Crl. L.J. 1208; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1283; 1985 Crl. L.J. 1922; 1997 Crl. L.J. 212; AIR 1976 SC 1947; AIR 1986 SC 833: 1997 SCC (Cri) 415; 2001 SCC (Cri) 1583; ILR 2002 Kar 4297; 2004 SAR (Cri) 457; 2004 SCC (Cri) 816; 2004 (2) Crimes 310; AIR 1998 SC 2115; 1981 Crl. L.J. 894; Cr. A. Nos. 18, 53 and 54 of 1972 dated 4-9-1972 (Manu/Sc/0119/1972; Cr. A. Nos. 289/1962 dated 2-8-1963 (Manu/KE0063/1965) 2003(1) 41 Crl.L.R.; ILR 1998 Kar 3599; 2004 (9) Scale 177.
Offence under the section
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 500 - Offence under -Duty of Court.
[S. N. Majage J]: When a complaint is filed for offence under Section 500 of IPC, court has to consider the material produced in support of it, its admissibility and circumstances and the context under which such imputation has been made besides the intention, if any, to make such imputation and whether the accusations made can be believed to have harmed the complainant s reputation. The only effect of an imputation being per se defamatory is that it would relieve the complainant of the burden to establish that the publication of such imputations has lowered him in the estimation of the right thinking members of the public.
Publishing a statement
LIBEL - Publishing a statement - If amounts to defamation in the given context.
Issuance of process
TRIAL PROCEDURE - Issuance of process -When can be justified.
[S. N. Majage J]: Issuing process against an accused for an offence can be justified only when, on examination of the complainant, witness and documents filed in support of complaint, a prima facie case is made out for the offence(s) alleged, otherwise not When offence alleged is not prima facie made out, taking cognizance of offence is illegal. It amounts to abuse of process of court and hence requires to be quashed.
( 1 ) THE respondent-complainant has filed a private complaint against 53 persons, including present petitioners, as accused in jmfc-II Court at Belgaum stating that accused Nos. 4 to 53 have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of ipc by publishing false and baseless imputation concerning him intending to harm him knowing full well that such imputations, if made, will harm his reputation whereas, by abetting and instigating said accused to commit said offence, the first three accused (A-1 to A-3) have committed an offence under Section 109 of IPC. After recording sworn statement of the complainant and examining a witness, the Court issued process against all the 53 accused, including the petitioners, for the offences alleged. Hence, the accused, other than accused Nos. 4, 9, 21. 33, 36, 39 to 42, 44 to 47 and 50 to 53, challenged it by filing Criminal Revision Petition no. 52/2004 in the Court of Session under Section 397 of Cr. P. C. It came to be dismissed on 26-6-2004. Hence, petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of cr. P. C.
( 2 ) WHEN the respondent-complainant appeared before this Court, with consent of both sides, taken the matter for final hearing. Heard the complainant-in-person (who is Advocate) and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused. It was vehemently argued for the petitioners that the allegations made In the complaint, when considered even with the sworn statements and documents produced, do not attract section 500 of IPC and as such, the learned magistrate was wrong in issuing process, but the Sessions Court failed to appreciate it and wrongly dismissed the revision petition and hence, this Court's interference under section 482 of Cr. P. C. is necessary to set aside that order and quash the entire proceedings, including process issued by' the learned magistrate. On the other hand, it was submitted by the complainant that the petition itself is not maintainable u/s. 482 of Cr. P. C. , as it amounts to invoking revisional power for the second time having once invoked it under section 397 of Cr. P. C. before the Court of session and as such, it requires to be rejected in limine. It was submitted further that even otherwise, the material on record, including the averments in the complaint, statements and documents produced clearly show a prima facie case for the offences alleged and as such, this Court at this stage should not interfere with the process issued. Perused the records carefully.
( 3 ) THE points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the petition is maintainable u/s. 482 of Cr. P. C. ? (2) Whether interference by this Court is nccessaiy ?
( 4 ) POINT NO. 1 : In support of his argument that the petition itself is not maintainable under section 482 of Cr. P. C. after dismissal of petition tiled under Section 397 of cr. P. C. by the Sessions Court, the complainant has relied on a decision of this court in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Ramesh v. H. N. Muddukrishna, ILR (1999) Kant 835.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, in support of his argument that even after the disposal of revision petition by the Court of Session under Section 397 of Cr. P. C. , this Court could exercise its Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions of the supreme Court in the case of State through special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjoth Sandhu, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545), Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, 1997 (1) Supreme 628 : (AIR 1997 SC 987 : 1997 Cri LJ 1519) and also an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Sri siddiq Mohiddin Faisal v. Dr. Kshounish chandranag, (Cri. P. No. 575/1996, D/- 11- 7-1997 ).
( 6 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that the decision of this Court in the case" of Smt. Hemalatha Ramesh (supra) relied on by the complainant is against the proposition canvassed by him because it has been held therein that even after dismissal of revision petition by the Sessions Judge, this Court can ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
