SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45301

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPETEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100285/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI. KARTIK VENKATESH,

AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: FILM DIRECTOR,

OFFICE AT:737/9, 60TH CROSS,

5TH BLOOK (OPP. VEIN CLINIC),

NEAR NAGRAJ, HERIGE HOSPITAL,

RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

&ACCUSED/PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH DHRWAD RURAL POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD-580 011.

2.

MALLIKARJUN S/O. DEVENDRAPPA ROTTIGAWAD,

AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:FILM DIRECTOR,

R/O. KANAVIHONNAPUR,

TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580 114.

&COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP FOR R1)

(BY SRI. S. S. DODDALINGANNAVR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF

CR.P.C., TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS

PETITIONER IN CC NO.3758/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD FOR

THE OFFENCE U/S.420, 500 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC VIDE

ANNEXURE-A

AND

ACCORDINGLY

THE

DATED

23.11.2021 PASSED IN PCR NO.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD VIDE

ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

09.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, has

filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a

prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.

3758/2021 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge

and CJM, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 420 and 500 r/w/s.34 of IPC, pursuant to

cognizance taken in PCR No.1/2020.

2.

It

is

the

case

of

the

petitioner

that

respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that he is a

3

Director, Producer and Actor by Profession and owner of

MDR Film Institute. He is engaged in making of Kannada

Movie <Adivasi Raju= under the banner of MDR Film City.

He entered into an agreement with petitioner on

09.11.2019

for

providing

Camera

essentials

for

shooting, outdoor shooting unit and post including

censor approval. He has also entered into an agreement

with accused Nos.2 and 3 who agreed to work as

technical Director and Co-actor in the said Film. Alleging

that the cameras supplied by the petitioner were not of

good quality and that he has made defamatory

statement in the whatsapp group titled <Ambiga

Productions=, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint.

Without application of mind, the trial Court has taken

cognizance and issued summons against accused Nos.1

to 3 including the petitioner. Challenging the same this

petition is filed.

4

3.

Respondent No.1 has appeared through High

Court Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 has also

appeared through counsel.

4.

During the course of arguments learned

counsel representing the petitioner submitted that to

extract money from the petitioner, respondent No.2 has

filed a false complaint. The matter between them is of

Civil nature and the provisions of Sections 420 and 500

of IPC are not attracted and prays to allow the petition.

5.

On the other hand learned counsel for

respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2

and petitioner entered into an agreement for supplying

of camera essentials and also to provide outdoor

shooting unit and post production including the censor

approval. Accused Nos.2 and 3 agreed to work as

Technical Director and Co-actor in the film. In this

regard petitioner has received Rs.4,50,000/- out of total

sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. However, after shooting for 15

5

days, when the complainant checked the footage, he

found that the footage is not of the good quality as the

camera supplied was not as per required quality. When

the complainant confronted accused No.1/ petitioner, he

was annoyed and therefore he posted defamatory

messages against the respondent No.2 in the Whatsapp

group with the intention of tarnishing his image. He

would further submit that based on the material placed

on record the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance

and issued summons and prays to dismiss the petition.

6.

The learned High Court Government Pleader

has also supported the steps taken by the trial Court

and sought for dismissal of the petition.

7.

Heard the arguments and perused the

materials on record.

8.

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 in

order to make a Kannada Movie by name <Adivasi Raju=,

entered into contract with petitioner, wherein he has

6

agreed to furnish camera essentials, outdoor shoot unit

and also post production work including obtaining

approval of Censor certificate. It is also not in dispute

that out of Rs.6,50,000/- he has agreed to receive

Rs.4,50,000/-. Difference of opinion has raised between

the petitioner and respondent No.2 on the allegations

that the camera essentials supplied by petitioner is not

of good quality and after differences arose, petitioner

has sent several messages in the whatsapp group which

are defamatory in nature.

9.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

submitted that the transaction between the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top