Point of Law: Using the words 'Taliban', 'Goonda', 'Pundatike' are per se intolerable and beyond the scope of the guidelines issued by the Press Council of India.

ORDER :

These four petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:

"In Crl.P.No.100541/2020

"To quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.845/2012 on the file of Court of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 109 and 500 of IPC, in so far petitioner is concerned.

In Crl.P.No.100540/2020

To quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.845/2012 on the file of court of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 & 109 IPC, in so far petitioner is concerned.

In Crl.P.No.100542/2020

To quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.845/2012 on the file of court of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 & 109 of IPC, in so far petitioner (A-3) is concerned.

In Crl.P.No.100543/2020

To quash the entire proceedings in CC No.845/2012 on the file of court of the 1st Addl Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable U/s 499 and 500 and 109 of IPC, insofar these petitioners/accused No.2 and 10 are concerned."

2. In all these four petitions, affidavits are filed by the petitioners who represent Lok Shikshan Trust, 'Samyukta Karnataka', 'Hosadiganta', 'Navodaya' and 'Kittur Karnataka' daily newspapers.

3. Copies of the affidavits are furnished to the counsel for the respondent who is the complainant before the trial Court.

4. In respect of an unfortunate and ugly incident said to have taken place in the precincts of City Civil Court, Bengaluru in the year 2012, there were several people who were injured comprising of advocates, police personnel and members of print and electronic media and few general public.

5. In regard to the said incident, there was a resolution passed by the advocates' associations across the State whereby it was resolved that journalists who have been booked under different provisions of IPC in different police station limits across the State shall not be defended by any advocates. The issue became serious and it was also echoed in assembly. One of the Members of the legislative assembly termed the resolution passed by the advocates' association as 'Taliban Mentality'. In the guise of reporting the said discussion, the print media have used unparliamentarily words in their publications including terming the advocates' fraternity at large as 'Goonda Mentality'. Some papers termed the resolution following the statement made by one of the Members of the Legislative Assembly as 'Taliban Mentality' by repeating the words spoken by Member of Legislative Assembly.

6. Thereafter, one of the advocates practicing in Gadag District namely Davalsab Nadaf filed a private complaint against the persons who have published such news items, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against them. Cognizance of the offences was taken by jurisdictional Magistrate and matter is pending in C.C.No.845/2012. These four petitioners have sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings against them.

7. Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel representing the petitioners herein contended that there was no intention to malign the advocate community at large and while reporting what transpired in the legislative assembly, some of the reporters might have reported in excess beyond their guidelines of reporting and in anxiety some unparliamentarily words have been used in their reports unintentionally and therefore they have expressed remorse and tendered unconditional apology in the form of affidavits that of the petitioners which can be accepted and the matter be brought to logical end insofar as petitioners are concerned.

8. Further, the petitioners who are present before the Court assure that they would be careful in not repeating such offences in future.

9. Sri.Sadiq N. Goodwala learned counsel representing the respondent contended that the affidavits no doubt tender unconditional apology, but mere quashing