Vishwanath @ Vishu Phaniraj Gopi Bhat vs State of Karnataka, Through Gokarna Police Station, Rep. by SPP

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Kar) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Vishwanath @ Vishu Phaniraj Gopi Bhat and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through Gokarna Police Station, Rep. by SPP and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.101784 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri A.P. Hegde, Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt. K.Vidyavathi, AAG for Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP; Shri S.M. Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Shri Prashant F. Goudar & Shri Akshay Katti, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 153-A, 295-A, 298, 500, 511, 419, 469, and 149 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Petition to quash criminal proceedings dismissed - Accused charged with conspiring to defame and disturb public peace by distributing derogatory material regarding a religious group - Prior sanction required under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. for investigation into offences against the State was properly addressed but not demonstrated for initial investigation - It was held that the prosecution must ensure cognizance is barred without prior sanction before progressing - Constitutionality of filing defamation complaints clarified, emphasizing that representatives of institutions may also file grievances - The court found allegations sufficiently robust to promote trial under the asserted offences, including defamation and promoting enmity - The Public Prosecutor’s discretion to withdraw prosecution was affirmed as not being subject to government direction. (Paras 1-44)

(B) Sanction for prosecution - Prior sanction from the state is mandatory before initiating prosecution for certain offences against the state to protect public interest - Cognizance requires such sanction at trial commencement post charge-sheet filing - The provision aims to uphold the executive’s discretion in addressing offences against state interests adequately. (Paras 31-33)

(C) Defamation - It clarified that a defamation complaint can be lodged by a representative of an affected institution, expanding the scope of 'person aggrieved' under Section 199 of IPC appropriately in certain contexts during trials. (Paras 48-56)

Table of Content
1. basic facts of the case and complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments regarding discharge application. (Para 9 , 10)
3. arguments around defamation complaint. (Para 11 , 12)
4. role of prior sanction in prosecution. (Para 13 , 14)
5. concerns over government influence on prosecution. (Para 15)
6. court's observations on sanction requirements. (Para 17)
7. issues around the public prosecutor's role. (Para 18 , 19)
8. investigation stage does not require sanction. (Para 20 , 21)
9. cognizance and requirement of sanction. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
10. implications of filing a charge sheet. (Para 25 , 26)
11. validity of withdrawal of sanction. (Para 27 , 28)
12. limitations on government's role in prosecution. (Para 29 , 30)
13. defamation complaints and aggrieved parties. (Para 31 , 32)
14. applicability of section 153-a ipc. (Para 33 , 34)
15. interpretation of section 67 of it act. (Para 35 , 36)
16. public interest considerations in withdrawals. (Para 37 , 38)
17. final conclusion and directive. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kumta in C.C.No.686/2011, dismissing the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking for discharge in the said matter wherein they were initially charged with offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 295-A, 298, 500, 511 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 6 7 of I.T. Act and subsequently charged with offences under Sections 292 , 419, 469 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 read with Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman Prohibition Act, which on revision has also been dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada by way of his order dated 04.04.2019 in Crl.R.P.No.4/2015.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

4. Accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 to 11 had approached the District and Sessions Judge, who had also dismissed the revision petition on 04.04.2019.

5. The present petition has been filed by accused Nos.4 and 11, the petitioners herein challenging the said order of the District and Sessions Judge.

6. The petitioners claim to be Vedic Scholars, Priests and Upadhivanthas of Shree Mahabaleshwar Temple Gokarna. In the year 2008, the Government of Karnataka handed over management of Shree Mahabaleshwar Temple, Gokarna to Shree Ramachandrapur Mutt of Hosanagar. This was opposed by the petitioners as also some of the general public. Thus, on account of the same, there was a strained relationship between the petitioners and Shri Ramachandrapur Mutt. The Petitioners has brought legal action against Ramachandrapur Mutt challenging the handling over the temple. The petitioners allege that in order to subdue and deter the petitioners and all other Uadhivanthas, a criminal action was designed by Mutt in the month of April 2020 and the administrator of the temple by name G.K. Hegde had filed a false and created complaint on 01.04.2010 against 12 persons including the petitioners, alleging that they were distributing handbills and Compact Disk (C.D.) to the public in Ratha Beedi of Gokarna, which contained derogatory materials against the Mutt and pontiffs in order to defame the pontiffs and to create a breach of peace and harm to the religious feelings amongst the devotees of Mutt. Based on which, the Gokarna P.S. reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Kar) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCHSuraj Govindaraj, J.Vishwanath @ Vishu Phaniraj Gopi Bhat and ors. – PetitionersVersusThe State of Karnataka, Through Gokarna Police Station, Rep. by SPP and ors. – RespondentsCriminal Petition No.101784 of 2019Decided On : 05-05-2020

Cases Referred (19)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Vishwanath @ Vishu Phaniraj Gopi Bhat and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through Gokarna Police Station, Rep. by SPP and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.101784 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2020