Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
Public Tv & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri. Bannadi Somanath Hegde - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10262 of 2019(GM-RES)
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Sri. M.S.Shyam Sundar, Senior Counsel, Sri. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The essential element for the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC is that the words complained of should be published of the complainant/plaintiff.
Headnote:
Defamation - Media Entities - The court held that for the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, an essential element is that the words complained of should be published of the complainant/plaintiff. Where the complainant is not named, the test would be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to the conclusion that he was the person referred to.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a private complaint for defamation against the petitioners and other accused, alleging that media entities had spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners-accused. The petitioners challenged this.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not an aggrieved person as enumerated under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., as the words complained of were not against the complainant in his individual capacity. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned proceedings insofar as it related to accused Nos. 9 and 10.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was an aggrieved person to maintain the complaint for the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The essential element for the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC is that the words complained of should be published of the complainant/plaintiff. If the complainant is not named, the test would be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to the conclusion that he was the person referred to.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings insofar as it related to accused Nos. 9 and 10 were quashed.
ORDER
1. The respondent has filed a private complaint u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) against the petitioners and other accused alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity at large. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the petitioners-accused among other accused. Taking exception to this, the petitioners have filed this petition.
2. Sri. M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons as defined under Section 499 of IPC, so as to maintain the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. In support, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.KHUSHBOO Vs. KANNIAMMAL AND ANOTHER reported in AIR (SC)-2010-0-3196. He further submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.9 and 10 are media entities, however, summons have been issued against individuals and the same is impermissible.
3. The respondent-complainant though served with notice has remained absent.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the documents annexed to the petition.
5. The allegation in the complaint is that sections of Media have spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity which amounts to defamation under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Khushboo supra, at para 26 and 27 has held that:
So as to attract the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, 'an essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words complained of should be published of the complainant/plaintiff. Where he is not named, the test would be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to the conclusion that he was the person referred to.'
6. In the present case the allegation is that the petitioners-accused have spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity and the words complained of is not against the complainant in his individual capacity. Hence, the complainant is not an aggrieved person as enumerated under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., so as to maintain the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.1378/2012 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kundapura, Udupi District, insofar it relates to accused Nos.9 and 10 is hereby quashed.
