Karnataka HC Sets Aside Order To Register Defamation Case Against Asst Commissioner For Shouting At Senior Lawyer, Calls It Quasi-Judicial Function

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Magistrate court directing the registration of a defamation case against the Assistant Commissioner of Kundapura who while discharging quasi-judicial function, allegedly acted erratically and became furious and shouted at a senior lawyer and a member of Kundapura Bar Association, appearing before him.

Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Charulata Somal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate court in 2015.

He said, “The revision petitioner is not an official who was discharging an official function. The facts of the case would depict that the revision petitioner as on the date of the incident was discharging the quasi-judicial function. Therefore, she could be treated as a Judge, as per definition of the word 'Judge' found in Section 2 of the said Judges (Protection) Act.”

He added, “Needless to emphasise that such an order passed by the Trial Magistrate ignoring the Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, has resulted in improper exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Magistrate calling for interference by this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.”

Further, he said that even assuming that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not necessary by accepting the arguments of the respondent for the limited purpose of disposal of the present revision petition, the respondent cannot and should not support the impugned order as the Trial Magistrate failed to understand the required sanction in view of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Advocate Shiriyara Muddanna Shetty had filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Magistrate court. It was alleged that when he had appeared before her in a revenue appeal case, she used harsh words against him. The petitioner is even said to have called the Dafedar of the Court and directed him to take away the respondent from the Court.

It was claimed in the complaint that uttering the above words was per se defamatory in nature and resulted in tarnishing the image of the respondent, who held a respectable position in Society as well as in the Bar.

The magistrate by order dated 12.08.2015 noted that sanction was not necessary to prosecute the present revision petitioner, took cognizance of the offences alleged against the revision petitioner and proceeded with the case.

The petitioner argued that the Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the revision petitioner herein without adverting to the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and sought to quash the order of taking cognizance.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records noted that at the most, the incident can be construed as a heated exchange of words between the Lawyer(respondent) and the Presiding Officer.

It held “Therefore, per se from looking into the words uttered by the revision petitioner, there are no ingredients which would attract the offences under Sections 499, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC.”

Taking note that the case is of the year 2015 and the respondent complainant is over 70 years of age. The court said, “Directing the Trial Magistrate to proceed with the case from the stage of taking cognizance by directing the respondent to obtain the necessary sanction, if the same is allowed to be permitted, the same would result in futile exercise.”

However, the court remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. It also directed the revision petitioner to send an apology letter to the respondent who is a Senior member of the Bar at Kundapura and if wisdom prevails on the respondent, the matter could be put at rest.

Appearance: Senior Advocate H.S Chandramouli for Advocate Rajath for Petitioner.

Advocate K.Prasanna Shetty for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515

Case Title: Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2016