Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

Sri. Prashanth Sambargi, S/o. Late Shashidhar B. Sambargi – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Roopa M. S., W/o. Sri. Y.K. Devanatha – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4935 Of 2022 C/W, Criminal Petition No. 5260 Of 2022 Criminal Petition No. 7106 Of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. K.R. Poorna Prasad, Adv.

A person cannot be held liable for defamation without evidence of intent to harm or direct involvement in the publication of defamatory statements.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 499, 500, and 504 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioner accused of defamation and criminal conspiracy - Allegations involve unauthorized publication of complainant's photographs resulting in reputational harm - Complainants assert malicious intent by petitioner - Court finds no prima facie evidence of intentions necessary for defamation; allegations viewed as retaliatory and lacking foundational elements to sustain charge. (Paras 18-20)

(B) Defamation - Essential elements - For a claim of defamation under IPC Section 499, there must be a deliberate act with intent to harm reputation - Mere provision of information or photographs without malicious intent does not constitute publication or defamation. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in three private complaints of defaming the complainants by providing their photographs to media outlets that published defamatory articles. The complainants allege reputational harm and malicious conduct on the part of the petitioner, while the petitioner contends that the complaints are retaliatory due to ongoing civil disputes.

Findings of Court:
Continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is deemed an abuse of process due to the lack of evidence satisfying the requirements for defamation.

Issues: The court examined if the allegations, if true, substantiate any offences under IPC Sections 499 and 500.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that supplying information does not equal intent or act of defamation without formal involvement in publication.

Result: Petitions allowed and proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of firs for defamation complaints. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against the complainants' motivations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. defense based on lack of evidence for defamation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. evaluation of prima facie evidence. (Para 9 , 10)
5. defining the essentials of defamation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. potential for abuse of legal process. (Para 18 , 19)
7. outcome of the petitions to quash complaints. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. Petitioner in these three petitions is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in PCR Nos.3557/2018, 9983/2018 and 5513/2021, wherein in all these private complaints, petitioner is accused of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 499, 500 and 504 of IPC . Crl.P.No.4935/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.3557/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of . Crl.P.No.7106/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.9983/2018 for the offence punishable under and 500 of . Crl.P.No.5260/2022 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in PCR.No.5513/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 120B(1), 499, 500 and 504 of .

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The gravamen of the allegations in all the three private complaints is that the present petitioner, Prashanth Sambhargi, unlawfully procured photographs of the complainant and furnished the same to the Editors-in- Chief of Bangalore Mirror and News18. It is alleged that, acting upon the said material, the respective media houses published and broadcast news items along with the photographs, thereby allegedly defaming the complainants and causing serious injury to their reputation and social standing.

The private complaint in PCR No.3557/2018 is instituted by Roopa M.S., whereas the other two complaints, namely PCR Nos.9983/2018 and 5513/2021, are filed by her husband, Y.K. Devanatha. In all the three complaints, the petitioner is accused of having acted with malice and ulterior motive in collecting the private photographs of the complainants and circulating the same to the media with an intention to malign their character and tarnish their reputation in society.

In PCR No.3557/2018, the complainant Roopa M.S. claims to be a highly qualified professional, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering (Electronics and Communication), a degree in Law, and a Master’s degree in Law. She asserts that she is a practicing Advocate before the High Court of Karnataka and various trial courts and that she has been carrying on a successful legal practice for the past seven years, with clients across the country. According to her, the unauthorized use and publication of her photographs by the Editors of the concerned print and digital media, allegedly at the instance of the petitioner, have gravely damaged her professional credibility, personal reputation, and social image, besides adversely affecting her agricultural activities and family relationships. On these premises, she has instituted the said private complaint.

The complainant’s husband, Y.K. Devanatha, has filed two separate private complaints, one against the Editor-in-Chief of Bangalore Mirror and another against the Editor-in-Chief of News18, in which the present petitioner is also arrayed as an accused. In these complaints, Devanatha alleges that the petitioner coerced and induced him into executing an agreement for sale by holding out threats and that he was further subjected to extortion. He contends that due to constant pressure and intimidation, he was unable either to disengage from the transaction or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings at the relevant point of time.

It is further alleged by Devanatha that on 19.06.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., he was apprehended by the CCB police and was thereafter handed over to the jurisdictional Subramanyapura Police at about 12.30 a.m. on 20.06.2018. According to him, the said action was a direct consequence of a complaint lodged by the petitioner on 28.03.2018, whe