Circulating Defamatory Cartoons In Institution's Internal Newspaper Against Expelled Member Attracts Charges U/S 500 IPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash the defamation proceedings pending against the President of Bowring Institute, who allegedly circulated objectionable cartoons defaming the complainant (an expelled member of the institute), in the newsletter to other members of the institute.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Anoop Bajaj and said “Sending the defamatory statement and the cartoons directly insulting the respondent by way of such statement, attracts Section 499 of IPC and it is not sent in good faith by the public authority in order to attract Exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC.”

Jayanna had filed a private complaint in the year 2014, against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 504, 505(2) read with Section 120-B of IPC. The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

It was alleged that on the special general body meeting called for by the petitioner, the petitioner sent a letter dated 09-05-2014, showing some pictures, cartoons and the defamatory pictures against the respondent which insulted the respondent intentionally.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter issued by the petitioner will not attract the definition under Section 499 of IPC and there is no intention to defame the respondent-complainant. The petitioner sent a letter to make the members of the Institute understand about the criminal case filed against the respondent by the petitioner and the letter was within the members of the Institute and it was not publicized, it was submitted. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC will not attract and it squarely falls under Exception-8 to Section 499 of IPC, it was argued.

Secondly, it was contended that the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent but posted the case for sworn statement, which is against the law and even otherwise, there is no application of mind while passing the order by the learned Magistrate.

The bench perused the newsletter sent by the petition to other members wherein the first cartoon picture, he is referring to the respondent along with other three persons who are said to be the expelled members, conspiring to attack the petitioner. The second picture reveals that the respondent has hired a mob carrying placards, shouting abusive slogans and targeting a particular community. The third cartoon picture reveals that the respondent is showing muscle power along with others and assaulting the staff of the Institute.

The fourth picture indicates that the respondent is preventing the guards. The fifth picture reveals that the respondent is kneeling down holding the leg of the petitioner and requesting for pardon and the petitioner accused is standing with suit. The last cartoon picture reveals that because of conspiracy and communal hatred, the respondent is put in accused box of the Court and he is standing in front of the Magistrate facing the criminal trial.

Following which the bench said “On perusal of the pictures of the cartoon, it is clear that the petitioner-accused No.1 with an intention to tarnish the image of the respondent-complainant has shown these cartoon pictures as good as he has committed the robbery or dacoity or heinous crimes in the Institute.”

Rejecting the contention that these cartoon pictures are only to make the members of the Institute better understand the criminal case against the respondent, the bench said “The members of the Institute are educated people, business people and professionals. Such being the case, there is no need for the petitioner to depict the picture of the respondent by showing the cartoon pictures to the members of Institute, the members of the Institute are not the small kids, who are not able to understand the criminal case filed against the respondent by the petitioner.”

Noting that the meeting called by the petitioner was for taking further course of action against the respondent after filing off the criminal case for creating ruckus, the bench said “The petitioner was not required to make such a defamatory statement and cartoon pictures in the news letter sent to the members of the Institute by defaming the respondent.”

Further it expressed “The members cannot be considered as the members of the inner house, but they are all the public figures in the society and they are members of the Institute/club.”

Further rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding taking cognizance by the Magistrate, the bench said “As per Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has received the complaint, examined the complainant by taking cognizance and postponed the issuance of process and thereafter, he has issued the process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no flaw in the order passed by the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.”

It added “It is well settled that, even in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no definition for the word 'cognizance'. It is only an application of mind by a Judge. Therefore, merely not mentioning the word 'cognizance', cannot be said that there is no cognizance taken by the Magistrate.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition and directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible, within 4 months on receipt of the order.

Case Title: Anoop Bajaj And Jayanna

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6639 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 129

Date of Order: 16-02-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba for petitioner.

HCGP Basavaraj S Sappannavar for respondent