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