To establish defamation under IPC, there must be evidence directly linking the accused to the publication and an intention to cause harm, which was lacking in this case.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.30739/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC .

2. The gist of the private complaint instituted by the respondent/complainant is as under:

The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners published a defamatory statement in the Prajavani newspaper. It is further alleged that the petitioners circulated false and frivolous emails among community members, with the intention of tarnishing the reputation of the complainant. In paragraph 19 of the private complaint, it is specifically asserted that the petitioners were responsible for publishing an article in Prajavani that was defamatory per se.

3. The learned Magistrate, on considering the complaint and material on record, has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioners are not the authors of the impugned publication. It is contended that the editor of the newspaper has not been arraigned as an accused, and hence, the proceedings are vitiated for non-joinder of a necessary party. It is further urged that the private complaint under Section 200 IPC for the offence punishable under Section 500 is nothing but a counterblast to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (u) and (z) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The counsel submits that, after a ‘B’ report was filed on the complaint of petitioner No.1, the respondent, with a false narrative unsupported by any evidence, has instituted the present proceedings. Even if the contents of the impugned article are taken at face value, there is no material linking its publication to the petitioners. It appears that the article was published only in the context of the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 alleging atrocities, and the contents of such complaint, as published, do not attract the ingredients of Section 499 .

5. On the aspect of procedural infirmities, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the examination-in- chief of the complainant cannot be recorded by way of an affidavit. Therefore, the order taking cognizance based on a defective sworn statement vitiates the entire proceedings. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, it is submitted that there is no material whatsoever to proceed against them. Petitioner No.3 had only issued a legal notice to the employer of the complainant reporting the incident, and, in any event, a settlement agreement has been entered into, thereby rendering the allegations unsustainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, referring to paragraph 14 of the complaint, submits that specific allegations are made even against petitioners 2 and 3; hence, the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Srinivas Narasimhan v. Narasaraja Bhattar (Crl P No.3193/2017) , it is argued that even if the sworn statement is defective, the proper course would be to remit the matter to the Magistrate for recording a fresh sworn statement. As regards petitioner No.1, it is contended that he was the person who informed the editor of the newspaper about the incident, and the article, being defamatory per se, furnishes sufficient material to proceed against him. Hence, the learned cou