V MARIYAPPA Vs. BARAGURU VIRUPAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions are filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the common judgment dated 15.10.2015 passed by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.161, 162, 163 and 164 of 2012, whereby the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in C.C.Nos.809, 808, 807 and 806 of 2008 has been confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner herein presented four separate complaints under section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate seeking prosecution of the respondents/accused for the alleged offences punishable under sections 499 , 500 and 501(b) of IPC. According to the petitioner/complainant, respondent No.1 being the Reporter and respondent No.2 being the Editor of Praja Pragathi Daily Newspaper, published four articles in their newspaper between 21.01.2006 and 19.08.2007. The contents of the said publications were defamatory. Though the articles did not mention the name of the petitioner yet, the imputations made therein were intended to defame the petitioner. Hence the petitioner sought action against the respondents/accused for the above offences. However, after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and his witnesses, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the contents of the publications did not attract the provisions of sections 499 , 500 or 501(b) of IPC . Further, learned Magistrate was of the view that the complainant was not individually affected by the said publications as they are general articles and for these reasons, learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the alleged offences and consequently, dismissed the complaints by its order dated 05.07.2012.

(3.) As against the above order, complainant preferred revision petitions before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. Even the revisional court concurred with the reasoning of the Trial Court and held that no individual remarks have been made in the said publications against the complainant and that the articles related to the manner in which the police were functioning in the district and as such, the contents of the publications were protected by the Second Exception to section 499 of IPC. The revisional court further held that the name of the petitioner was nowhere mentioned in the offending articles and as such, there was no material to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the respondents and accordingly dismissed the revision petitions. These orders are assailed by the petitioner in these petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.