Criminal Defamation Case: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Summons Against Aroon Purie, Rajdeep Sardesai, Shiv Aroor

Justice V SRISHANANDA said the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons is mechanical in nature. The court remitted the matter for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law.

“The learned Magistrate has adopted a wrong procedure in allowing the advocate of the complainant to examine the complainant in chief when his sworn statement is recorded,” said the bench.

A sting operation was conducted when the complainant is alleged to be having a discussion in Hotel Lalit Ashok at Bengaluru on 27.05.2016. Rajya Sabha elections were being held at that juncture and there was a conversation with regard to the politicians leaving one political party and joining another party perhaps by luring them with money. The sentences spoken by the complainant, which were recorded in the sting operation, were aired in the electronic media and were also published in the print media.

In respect of the said incident, Patil had lodged a complaint with High Grounds Police Station, under Sections 417, 420, 468, 153A 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 65 of Information Technology Act, 2000, The High Court has already stayed proceeding in that case in a petition filed in 2017.

Alleging that by publication of the conversation, his fame in his constituency was reduced to such an extent that he lost the assembly election which was held in 2018, Patil filed a private complaint seeking action against Times Now, India Today and its journalists for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. Following which the impugned order dated 19.10.2019 came to be passed.

The petitioners submitted that the order of issuing summons was passed in mechanical manner which is per se visible from the fact that the Magistrate has also taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC when no such allegations are found from the complaint averments.

The court said the magistrate has adopted a wrong procedure in allowing the advocate of the complainant to examine the complainant in chief when his sworn statement is recorded.”

“Catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court has cautioned the District Judiciary that such a procedure is impermissible and it has to be discontinued. Despite such reported judicial pronouncements, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in allowing the examination-in-chief to be conducted while the sworn statement of the complainant is recorded. Further, the same is made as a basis for assessing the prima facie case to summon the petitioners herein,” it added.

Relying on coordinate bench judgment in the case of Naganagouda Veeranagouda Patil and Another vs. Malatesh H. Kulkarni and Others, the bench observed: “Section 200 of Cr.P.C, enjoins a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Therefore, mere examination of the complainant alone would not be sufficient to take cognizance of the offences alleged in a given case. At least one witness must support the cause of the complainant.”

The court said admittedly except the complainant, no other person was examined. "The learned Magistrate has thus totally erred in not following the appropriate procedure and taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners herein,” it said.

The court also noted that Magistrate has also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 149 of IPC, though no such allegation is forthcoming in the complaint itself.

"The entire sworn statement in the form of examination-in-chief does not also depict that the petitioners had shared the common object of defaming the complainant so as to invoke Section 149 of IPC," observed the court. 

Noting that a case has already been lodged by the complainant before High Grounds Police, the bench said: “What prevented the complainant to invoke Sections 499 and 500 of IPC in the same complaint is also a question that has not been looked into by the learned Magistrate while passing the order of issuing summons.”

The court said that the order issuing summons suffers from legal infirmity and the procedural lapses and therefore, it needs to be quashed.

The court rejected the contention of the petitioners that if the court is of the opinion that continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law, mere quashing the order issuing summons would not serve the ends of justice and the whole complaint needs to be quashed.

“Such a contention on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced in law for the simple reason that if an order is challenged before the Court which is per se illegal, this Court is not expected to decide anything on merits of the matter, as the same may prejudice the case of the parties when the matter is remitted for fresh consideration before the competent Court,” it said.

Case Title: Times Now BCCL And Bhojaraj R Patil

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200023/2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.201460/2022, 201461/2022 & 201462/2022.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Appearance: Advocate Pavan Narang for Advocate Gowthamdev C Ullal, Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, for Advocate Sudarshan M a/w Advocate B Pramod, for petitioners.

Advocate Santosh S Patil for respondent.