Defamation | Case Against Co-Accused Cannot Be Quashed Due To Compromise Between Main Accused And Complainant: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that a defamation case against a co-accused cannot be quashed because of a compromise entered between the main accused and the complainant. The court has to take note of the allegation made against each of the accused while deciding the plea.

A single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Nagarajan and another accused who are employees of Doordarshan and were charged under sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

It said, “In view of compromise between accused No.1 and the complainant, there cannot be a criminal prosecution against the petitioners and the said contention cannot be accepted. The Court has to take note of the allegation made against each of the accused and when prima facie materials are found against the petitioners to take cognizance and court has issued the process, the question of interference by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise.”

A private complaint was registered by complainant Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi claiming that a false sexual harassment at workplace complaint was registered against him by the accused with the employer Doordarshan and also the police.

The complaint was also forwarded to the Prime Minister of India, Minister I & B, State Minister I & B, Chairman-Prasar Bharati, CEO-Prasar Bharati, Chairperson NCW and Chairperson, Internal Complaints Committee with an intention to spoil his image. The internal committee on enquiry had discharged the complaint.

Further, it was alleged that the accused had conspired with the accused No.1 (lady who gave the sexual harassment complaint) and supplied it to the media which was published in newspapers. They also supported the accused No.1, by giving false statements as witnesses before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers, it was stated.

The accused contended that accused No.1 (lady complainant) and Joshi had compromised the matter between themselves and the court had permitted Joshi to withdraw the complaint filed against the accused No.1.

They submitted that when the complaint against accused No.1 had been withdrawn, the question of proceeding against them, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 did not arise. It was stated that the question of conspiracy does not arise and continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.

Finally, it was argued that the statements made by them were before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers as witnesses and the same does not amount to defamation.

The complainant opposed the plea contending that the earlier petition filed by the accused was dismissed and direction was issued to the Magistrate to comply with provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and proceed under law.

Reference was also made to the observation made by the magistrate court in its order taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing process against the accused.

Findings:

The court referred to the Magistrate court's order which held that the act of accused No.3 was sufficient to hold that he knew the allegations of sexual harassment were false, but yet proceeded to defame the complainant, leading to there being prima facie material against him.

In respect of accused No.4, it was held that there was material on record to show that accused No.4 had sent e-mails to the Ministry of I.B. and other officers regarding the allegations of sexual harassment.

"There is material on record to show that the complainant (Joshi) has taken action against the accused No.4 when he was Director of Dooradarshana, Bangalore. Just to take revenge, the accused No.4 has made false allegations against the complainant (joshi) and sent mails to higher authorities. Hence, prima facie material against accused No.4 to that effect is that without there being any reason, made false and baseless allegation against the complainant," it was held.

Following this the court said that when such materials are placed on record, it was not a fit case to exercise the power of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the case against the petitioners.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Hitesh Gowda B.J for Shivaraj C Bellakki for Petitioners.

Advocate Suyog Herele for Advocate Sanjay Katageri for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

Case Title: S Nagarajan & ANR AND Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100812 OF 202

Click Here To Read/Download Order