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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 944

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA
SRI K N SHANTHA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI MALLIKARJUNJAPPA – Respondent
CRL.P 1218/2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. K.N. SHANTHA KUMAR

S/O. LATE SRI. K.A. NETTAKALAPPA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

EDITOR

PRAJAVANI KANNADA NEWSPAPER

EDITORIAL OFFICE

NO.515, 516/2, SHRAMAJEEVI COMPLEX

P.B. ROAD,

DAVANAGERE - 02

PRESENTLY WORKING AT

#75, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD

POST BOX NO.5331

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI. S SHIVARAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE SRI T.S. SHIVASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

Digitally signed PRINTER & PUBLISHER

by PRASHANTH

PRAJAVANI KANNADA NEWSPAPER

N V

Location: High RAJ HANS PVT LTD., PLOT NO.13

Court of KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA

Karnataka

LOKIKERE ROAD

DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: S S NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SMT: SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI MALLIKARJUNJAPPA

S/O MUSTARAPPA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

ADVOCATE

RESIDING AT GUMMANARU VILLAGE GUDHAL POST, ANAGODU HOBLI DAVANAGERE - 577 512.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI: G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE (AB))

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED THEREIN IN C.C.NO.2080/2012 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE I-JMFC, DAVANAGERE TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 499, 500, 501, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND TO QUASH THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO.2080/2012 PENDING ON THE COURT I -

JMFC, DAVANGERE.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.2080 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Davangere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 , 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, a private complaint in PCR No.67 of 2012 was filed by the respondent - complainant against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is contended in the private complaint that the complainant is an advocate enrolled with Karnataka State Bar Council and practicing at Davangere. He reliably learnt that on 02.03.2012 there was an unfortunate incident that has occurred in City Civil Court, Bengaluru and there was a clash between the media person and others. The media report carried the impression that the advocates are goondas, rowdies etc., The petitioners suspected that both print and electronic media have reported/telecasted the incident with one sided story. Accused No.1 is the editor, accused No.2 is the printer and publisher of Prajavani Kannada daily newspaper, which is having wide circulation. On 03.03.2012, in the said newspaper, the accused persons have published the report under the heading "ªÀQîgÀ ¥ÀÄAqÁnPÉ E°è£À ¹n ¹«(cid:23)ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀQîgÀÄ ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ(cid:23)ÉÃdÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ(cid:23)É PÀ®Äè vÀÆgÁl £Àqɹ UÀÆAqÁVj ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¹zÀÄÝ"

3. The respondent - complainant has stated that he started receiving phone calls from his friends regarding this report and his clients started saying that they started losing confidence in the advocates. General public started suspecting the credibility of the respondent and thereby he is defamed. The petitioners have committed the offences as stated above and accordingly, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance and to initiate legal action.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance and registered CC No.2080 of 2012 and summoned the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard Sri S S Naganand, learned senior advocate for Smt Sumana Naganand, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri G Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent is absent. No representation. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, he has not addressed the arguments

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top