IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prima facie evidence of defamation and conspiracy justifies the continuation of criminal proceedings, even if the main complaint is withdrawn.

ORDER :

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hangal for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent- complainant by filing a private complaint is that accused No.1 had written a complaint dated 23.01.2015 of sexual harassment at work place of Director General, Dooradarshan and the same was forwarded to Prime Minister of India, Minister I & B, State Minister I & B, Chairman-Prasar Bharati, CEO-Prasar Bharati, Chairperson NCW and Chairperson, Internal Complaints Committee with an intention to spoil the image of the respondent and also filed complaint of sexual harassment before Tilak Marg Police Station on 04.03.2015. As a result, the complainant got deprived his promotion to the post of the Director General.

3. It is contended in the complaint making an allegation against the accused Nos.3 and 4 that they are in conspiracy with the accused No.1 for giving information regarding such allegations to media and because of which the said news was publicized in the newspaper as contended in Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the complaint. It is also alleged against the petitioners that, in order to support the accused No.1, gave false statement as witness before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers. Hence, filed the complaint against them. The only allegation against the accused No.4 is that he wrote an email asking authorities to take action against the complainant on the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the accused No.1 against the complainant and posted the copy of said email to friends, well wishers and relatives. The Trial Court, by its order dated 05.11.2016, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 on the ground that no prima facie material to proceed against the above accused for taking cognizance. However, proceeded to register criminal case against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is also contended that accused No.1 and complainant had compromised the matter for settling the dispute between themselves and permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint filed against the accused No.1.

4. The ground urged in this petition is that when the accused No.1 had withdrawn the complaint against the accused No.1, the question of proceeding against these two petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 does not arise. The genesis for initiating present criminal proceedings by the complainant was sexual harassment complaint filed by the accused No.1. It is also contended that, in the complaint, specific allegations are made against the accused No.1 and common intention and conspiracy along with the accused No.1 is alleged in the complaint and when the complaint was withdrawn against the accused No.1, the question of conspiracy does not arise and continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. The complainant has made an allegation against the petitioners that they have given false evidence against the complainant before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers to defame the reputation of the complainant. The petitioners have given statement of what they had knowledge about the incident and given the statement before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers as witnesses and the same does not amount to defamation and the petitioners have not made any statement or remarks against the respondent- complainant to spoil his name and respect in the society. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also in his argument reiterated the grounds which have been urged in the petition that once the case has been compromised between the accused No.1 and the complainant, the question of continuing the criminal prosec