Public figures are expected to tolerate a higher degree of criticism; statements that lack intention to harm or do not meet the per se standard for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC do not constitute an offense.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.3478 of 2024 arising out of P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the accused and respondent is the complainant. On 19-11-2019, it appears, the petitioner/accused seeks to register a complaint before the Sampangiramnagar Police Station which does not get registered but gets a non-cognizable report in NCR No.189 of 2019. On 25-12-2019 the complainant was called to the Police Station and he was explained the ramification of such statements being made by him. A few days thereafter, the complainant walks to the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the CR.P.C. and registers P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC . On 17-03-2023, three years after registration of PCR, sworn statement of the complainant is recorded and on 05-12-2023 after about 9 months, remaining part of the sworn statement is recorded. On 06-02-2024 the learned Magistrate takes cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and issues summons to the petitioner. Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri M. Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioner would contend that the complaint is a counter- blast to what the petitioner had already registered against the complainant. It is registered only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. There is suppression of material facts in the complaint. The complaint is cleverly drafted without the ingredients being met. The learned senior counsel would further contend that in a public life it is necessary for the people’s representatives to be a little thick-skinned and not too sensitive. Above all, he would contend that the order of taking cognizance does not meet the law as laid down by this Court as it suffers from non-application of mind. He would contend that ingredients necessary for offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC are not met in the case at hand.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions to contend that it was a derogatory statement made by the petitioner against the complainant. He calls him a mad cap, idiot and ignorant person. If this cannot form the offence under Sections 49 and 500 of the IPC , the learned counsel would submit, then what else it could be. Therefore, he would submit that the Court having already taken cognizance for the offence, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On 06-03-2018 the petitioner is said to have been elected as a Deputy Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The respondent calls for a press conference where it is alleged that he has made certain derogatory or defamatory statements against the petitioner who was then elected as a Deputy Speaker. Based upon those statements, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Sampangiramnagar Police Station alleging that on 14-11-2019 the respondent calls for a press conference and makes defamatory statements against the petitioner. On 25-12-2019 the respondent was called to the Police Station and statements of both the petitioner and t