In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5379/2010 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.5380/2010 BETWEEN: 1. M/s.THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.75, M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. HARI KUMAR
2. MR. K.N.TILAK KUMAR THE EDITOR, PRAJAVANI & DECCAN HERALD NO.75, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. MR. S.V.SRINIVASAN PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, PRAJAVANI & DECCAN HERALD NO.74, M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. ... COMMON PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
AND: MR. V.A.PUGAZHENDI S/O T.VASU, 48 YEARS OCC : BUSINESS & SOCIAL WORKER R/O NO.345, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011. ... COMMON RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) 2
CRL.P.No.5379/2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2009 PASSED IN C.C.NO.24519/2009, ON THE FILE OF XI ACMM AT BANGALORE & ETC.
CRL.P.No.5380/2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2007 PASSED IN C.C.NO.24334/2008, ON THE FILE OF XI ACMM AT BANGALORE & ETC. *** THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In Criminal Petition No.5379/2010, petitioners 1 to 3
are arrayed as accused 1 to 3. Petitioner No.1 is the
Company, represented by its Chairman, Sri Hari Kumar.
Petitioner No.2 is the Editor and Petitioner No.3 is the
Printer and Publisher of “Prajavani” daily newspaper. They
had caused paper publication against the respondent-
complainant, making certain defamatory statements.
In Criminal Petition No.5380/2010, the same set of
persons are arrayed as accused 1 to 3. Petitioner No.1 is the
Company, represented by its Chairman, Sri Hari Kumar.
Petitioner No.2 is the Editor and Petitioner No.3 is the
Printer and Publisher of “Deccan Herald” daily newspaper. 3
The petitioners in the aforestated capacity had caused publication in “Prajavani” and “Deccan Herald” daily newspapers dated 03.05.2007, making certain defamatory statements against the respondent-complainant. The complaint was filed under section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging an offence punishable under section 500 IPC. The learned
Magistrate after recording sworn statement of complainant had issued summons to petitioners. Therefore, they are before this court.
2. I have heard Sri S.Sriranga, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel for respondent-complainant and I have perused paper publications of “Prajavani” and “Deccan Herald” dated 03.05.2007 and copies of complaints on the basis of
which such publications were caused.
3. The paper publications do not reflect the contents of
judicial proceedings in RCC No.0402934/06 on the file of
JMFC Court No.5 at Pune. It is stated in publications that 4
two cases were pending against the respondent- complainant, one regarding a lottery prize money cheating case in Mandya and a kidnapping case registered at
K.R.Puram.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on fourth exception to section 499 IPC to contend that what has been published in newspapers is not defamatory and the same is protected under fourth exception to section 499 IPC.
5. The fourth exception to section 499 IPC reads thus:-
“Fourth Exception—Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts—It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.”
6. As already stated, the publication of news items relating to two cases pending against the respondent- 5
complainant, one regarding a lottery prize money cheating case in Mandya and a kidnapping case registered at
K.R.Puram do not reflect the court proceedings. There are several additions and distortions in two publications against the respondent-complainant, one regarding a lottery prize money cheating case in Mandya and a kidnapping case registered at K.R.Puram. The petitioners have not placed any material, in particular, the records of court to prima facie establish that what has been published is the true reflection of court proceedings. In any event, this is a matter to be decided by the trial court. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that on 01.02.2015, petitioners had caused publication in
“Prajavani” and “Deccan Herald” newspapers, giving clarifications to purge the offence alleged against them.
8. In my considered opinion, the said clarifications are self-serving statements. They had neither consent and 6
approval of the respondent-complainant nor they were approved by the court. How far these clarifications would come to the rescue of petitioners is a matter for consideration before the trial court.
9. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners are dismissed. The observations made in this order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case, during subsequent stages of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE
SNN