Statements in judicial complaints can constitute defamation; however, delays and the need for evidence in support must be taken into account, reinforcing the importance of reputation and good faith in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Challenging order dated 30.05.2025 passed by VIII ACJM, Bengaluru, in PCR.no.14037/2017 at Annexure-A refusing to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 read with Sections 211 and 182 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Arjun Rego, learned counsel appearing for Sri Rego LPE, advocate for petitioners (complainants) submitted, a private complaint was filed against respondent (accused) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) stating that complainants and accused were relatives and there was dispute between them relating to ownership, construction, use, occupation and enjoyment of immovable property bearing Municipal no.20, A Cross, Benson Town, JC Nagar, Bangalore ('Premises' for short). It was alleged, accused and her family members were attempting to dispossess complainant from said premises, which was resisted. That on 03.04.2008, accused with malice, sinister and oblique motives lodged a patently false case against complainants alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Based on complaint, Crime no.64/2008 came to be registered by JC Nagar Police Station, and later charge-sheet in CC no.4240/2009 was also filed, apparently in collusion with one Tanveer Ahmed, which dragged on for seven years until quashed by this Court in Crl.P.no.6136/2015 on 10.08.2016. It was stated, Hon'ble Lokayuktha had issued directions for exemplary action against said Tanveer Ahmed.

3. It was stated, macabre ordeal had etched indelibly immense embarrassment, fear, mental torment, loss of health, money as well as restriction of movement and apprehension of incarceration on complainants and required to be compensated. It was stated, litigation included appearance before Hon'ble Supreme Court at New Delhi, as follows:

(i) Crl.RP.no.330/2011

(ii) Crl.RP.no.286/2011

(iii) Crl.P.no.1311/2013

(iv) Crl.P.no.1999/2008

(v) WP.no.29694-95/2014

(vi) Crl.P.no.6136/2015

(vii) SLP(Crl.)3680/2014

(viii) SLP(Crl.)3708/2014

(ix) SLP(Crl.)3793/2014

(x) SLP(Crl.)3930/2014

4. It was stated, same caused loss estimated at Rs.50 Lakhs, to which complainants reserved liberty to recover from accused. It was alleged accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 182, 211, 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC and sought action against her.

5. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to contents of complaint filed by accused describing present complainants as goondas etc., as well as to sworn statement recorded on 25.11.2023, wherein detailed description of acts of defamation and wrongful prosecution committed by accused against present complainants were substantiated along with documents. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lachhman v. Pyarchand , 1959 SCC OnLine Raj 18, had held statement made by a party in a complaint to Police would be sufficient publication for action under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.

6. Further, relying on ratio in case of Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 638, it was submitted, there was failure to hold enquiry under Section 202 of CrPC and reason assigned that offence under Section 500 read with Sections 211 and 182 of IPC form part of same transaction and therefore, bar against taking cognizance of one offence would be bar against others also was contrary to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of U.P. v. Suresh Chandra Srivastava & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 92 and State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it was held where cause o