Gangadhar Hiregutti and Others vs Ishwar

P.D. Waingankar, J—By order dated 13.02.2015 in C.C. No. 80/2015, JMFC Bhatkal took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners and one Ganapathi Naik for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent-Ishwar. To quash the proceedings initiated against them, the petitioners have filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The facts in a nutshell which gave rise to this petition are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 being proprietor, printer and reporter of Karavali Munjavu, Kannada Daily newspaper, published a news item in their newspaper dated 08.07.2014 under the caption:

It is the case of the petitioners that one Ganapati J. Naik, President, Bhatkal Taluka Congress Seva Dal, addressed a letter dated 07.07.2014 containing the above news to the petitioner No. 3, the reporter of the newspaper in his letter head to publish the same in the Karavali Munjavu, Kannda Daily Newspaper. Accordingly, on the next day i.e., on 08.07.2014, the news item was published in Karavali Munjavu Kannada Daily Newspaper widely circulated in Uttar Kannada and neighbouring districts.

According to the complainant, the news item had been published without verifying its correctness, it was totally false, baseless. It has tarnished the image and reputation of the complainant in the eyes of public at large. Annoyed by the publication of the news item, he filed a private complaint against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and one Ganapati J. Naik for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of IPC before the JMFC, Bhatkal. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the respondent/complainant and his witnesses, passed an order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of IPC against the petitioners and Ganapati J. Naik. The Court also ordered for the issue of process against them. To quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, this criminal petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners/accused and the respondent/complainant. Perused the records.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of this Court reported in The Editor, Deccan Herald Vs. Prof. M.S. Ramaraju, (2005) CriLJ 2672 : (2005) ILR (Kar) 1907 : (2005) 3 KarLJ 579 : (2005) 2 KCCR 1295 in the case of Editor, Deccan Herald, Bangalore Vs. Prof. M.S. Ramaraju would submit all that the petitioners did was that they just published the news item based on the report given by one Ganapati J. Naik/accused No. 4 in his letter head in good faith, believing the report given by Ganapati J. Naik as true and nothing more than that. Therefore, it does not amount to defamation so as to give cause to file a complaint against them.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the news item published perse false, baseless, absurd in as much as without verifying as to the correctness of the report given by accused No. 4. Since, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 published the news item in their newspaper their act squarely falls within the ambit of Section 501 of IPC. If they published in good faith in the public interest or for public good and their case falls within the purview of ninth exception to Section 499 of IPC they have to establish the same during the course of trial, but they cannot seek quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1514 : (1981) CriLJ 894 : (1981) 1 SCALE 851 : (1981) 3 SCC 208 : (1981) SCC(Cri) 698 : (1981) 3 SCR 627 in the case of Sweakrm Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioners.

At the outset it has to be stated that newspaper journalist do not enjoy any special privilege under law. Needless to say that the news item published appears to be perse defamatory. It seems to be in retaliation of the statement given by the complainant in the same newspaper. The Court does not know the truth or falsity of the imputation published. Be that as it may, perse defamation is punishable under Section 500 of IPC. It is for the petitioners to plead that they are protected under ninth exception to Section 499 of IPC in order to get immunity from punishment. The burden is on the petitioners to place evidence showing that they acted with due care and caution and after being satisfied as to the correctness of imputation. The burden could be discharged by leading evidence during the course of trial. Without recording the plea and weighing the evidence, one cannot come to the conclusion as to whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence under Section 500 of IPC. The petitioners were called upon to beg apology by the complainant by issuance of publication in their newspaper before filing the complaint. They did not respond. Admittedly, petitioner No. 3 is the local reporter for Bhatkal Taluka who forwarded the news item given by accused No. 4 for publication. Therefore, if at all, criminal liability shall have to be fastened only against petitioner No. 3 who is accused No. 3 and Ganapati Naik accused No. 4. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 seems to have no role in publishing the news item so as to hold them criminally liable though they are answerable in a civil action claiming damages. As such, the trial must go on against accused Nos. 3 and 4 only. The proceedings as against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I pass the following

ORDER

Petition is partly allowed. Proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 80/2015 on the file of the JMFC, Bhatkal are hereby quashed.

Proceedings against petitioner No. 3 i.e., accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 Ganapati Naik should go on.