The Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct police to register and investigate a complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC without following due process as outlined in Section 199 of the CrPC.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner – sole accused is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.71/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023 , which arose from a PCR No.2/2025 registered on 04.06.2025.

2. Heard Sri Sammith S., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri D. Aswathappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is the accused and respondent No.2, the complainant. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as a Vice Chancellor of the Bengaluru North University. Owing to certain allegations against respondent No.2 - complainant, the petitioner - the Syndicate of the University opined to terminate the services of respondent No.2, who was a part time lecturer. Respondent No.2 then challenges the same before the co-ordinate bench of this Court and the co-ordinate bench in terms of the order dated 08.07.2025 sets aside the order of termination and remits the matter back to the hands of the University to afford an opportunity to the petitioner therein or conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and then pass necessary orders thereon. The said finding has nothing to do with what is now being agitated before this Court in the subject petition. During the subsistence of the writ petition, respondent No.2 sets the criminal law into motion by registering a private complaint register in P.C.R.No.2/2025 on 04.06.2025, for the aforesaid offences. The Special Court refers the matter for investigation, which later becomes a crime in Crime No.71/2025. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Sri Sammith S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that none of the allegations that are necessary to be met for the offences alleged are even present in the case at hand. He would contend that the provisions of the Act would not get attracted as the petitioner, owing to the resolution of the Syndicate, respondent No.2 had been terminated from the service and that cannot result as a counter blast and a crime being registered thereon.

5. Sri D. Aswathappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant submits that all the offences are met in the termination order itself as a co-employee had registered a complaint against the petitioner for his misbehavior and therefore, the termination had come about. Be that as it may.

6. The issue now revolves around the legal snags that have percolated into the subject proceedings. The private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS is registered by respondent No.2 - complainant on 28.05.2025 for the aforesaid offences. The first legal snag is that, the reference is made for offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and Section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023 , which was Section 500 of the earlier regime - the IPC , which is for defamation. If the issue is of defamation, the concerned Court could not have directed investigation to be conducted by the police as it is by now a settled principle of law that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences, there cannot be an investigation by the police in the case of a defamation, which is between two individuals or entities. This Court in an identical issue in the case of Prashanth Sambargi v. State of Karnataka , 1CRIMINAL PETITION NO.349 of 2021, Disposed On 10.05.2022 , has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

9. [….] The message depicts that the complainant is a con artist of Bangalore, smooth talker and a 420 and a