Statements made during elections can be deemed defamatory under IPC Section 499, warranting cognizance by a Magistrate if they lower another's reputation.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.11703 of 2022 registered for offence punishable under 499 and 500 of the IPC .

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri S A Ahmed, appearing for respondent.

3. The stage is set to 2008 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, wherein the petitioner and the respondent were opposing each other from their respective parties. The story then gets fast forwarded to the 2018 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, again the two are opposing each other. The subject issue revolves round the elections of the year 2023. The respondent is said to have won the assembly seat from Nagamangala constituency and the petitioner lost the elections. During the elections, several statements made by the petitioner against the respondent forms the fulcrum of the lis, which according to the complaint amounts to ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 499 of the IPC , made penal under Section 500 of the IPC . On the complaint, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance for the offence, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and issues summons to the petitioner. Taking of cognizance and issuing of summons is what has driven the petitioner in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the statements made nowhere indicates that it is or it has the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC . The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence without application of mind. He would project a legal issue, which is not pleaded in the petition, that the Court which has taken cognizance is not the Court which is designated for hearing the cases of Legislators.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri S A Ahmed representing the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that perusal at the complaint and the statements made by the petitioner is on the face of it defamatory, without any basis and has the capacity to lower the reputation of the respondent in the eyes of the general public. He would therefore contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean, as no case is made out by the petitioner warranting interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The case in the stage is set at the elections for the Nagamangala constituency. The respondent contests from a congress party and the petitioner against him. Respondent wins, the petitioner loses. The aftermath of the loss is the issue in the lis. Popular Kannada Daily Newspapers published the statement made by the petitioner on 16-08-2023, 17-8-2023 and 18-8-2023. Contending that the statements made were, on the face of it defamatory, as the same was carried on to every other newspaper, the respondent registers a private complaint in PCR No.11642 of 2023. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, takes cognizance and issues summons to the petitioner. Whether the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are met for it to become an offence under Section 500 of the IPC is what is required to be noticed. Sections 499 and 500 read as follows:

“499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason t