ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in P.C.R.No.4/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 499, 500, 501 and 506 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein had filed a private complaint, which is numbered as P.C.R.No.4/2020 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivasapura under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. making the allegation against the petitioner that on 20.12.2019 he had addressed the media at Vidhana Soudha by leveling score of false and baseless allegations against the respondent particularly done in the backdrop of momentum where the respondent was being considered to the seat of opposition leader. The petitioner in his speech made the allegation that the respondent has committed encroachment of forest land and Government land when he was the Health Minister and caused loss of Rs.533.22 Crores which reveals from the CAG report. The said statement appeared in certain sections of media and in newspaper such as Kannada Prabaha and Vijay Karnataka. In view of the publication in the media and the statements made by the petitioner, have caused serious injury to the reputation, dignity and standing of the respondent. The learned Magistrate having received the complaint, proceeded to record the sworn statement of the witnesses after taking the cognizance. Thereafter, considering the material on record, issued the process against the petitioner herein. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.

3. The first count of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court which has taken the cognizance is not having the jurisdiction to take the cognizance. The other contention of the petitioner is that without looking into the ingredients of Section 388 of IPC, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the said offence also. It is contended that there is no allegation of extortion in the complaint and in the absence of pleading regarding extortion, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 388 of IPC. The other contention is that the statements made is not intending to harm and defame the respondent herein. Without looking into the material on record, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking the cognizance relying upon the statements of other two witnesses, namely Sri Ayyappa and Sri Syed Azaz Pasha and they are not the eye-witnesses to the press statement.

4. The other contention is that the learned Magistrate has not taken any cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC and when the cognizance was not taken for Section 499 of IPC, the question of taking the cognizance in respect of Section 500 of IPC does not arise. The learned counsel vehemently contend that while taking the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 501 of IPC, the complainant has not made either the editor or the reporter of the newspaper as party to the complaint. When Section 501 of IPC will not attract to the petitioner, the question of taking cognizance for the said offence does not arise.

5. The learned counsel vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, wherein the petitioner has not committed the offence of criminal intimidation in view of the press statement. Under the press statement, the petitioner requested the Government of Karnataka to initiate an enquiry against the respondent and the same will not amount to any criminal intimidation. The learned counsel would contend that learned Magistrate should not have taken the cognizance and the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court is very clear that vindication to majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence ag