K V RAMESH Vs. H C RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are filed under S. 482 Cr. P. C. seeking for quashing of the proceedings in CC. 17128/96 pending in the Court of VII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore City, against the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioner in Crl. P. No. 333/97 is the Managing Editor of the Indian Express at Bombay. Petitioners in Crl. P. No. 339/97 are the Resident Editor and Publisher of Indian Express at Bangalore. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 372/97 is the Chief Editor of Indian Express at New Delhi. The respondent herein filed a private complaint in the Court of VII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore, against the petitioners and one Dr. K. Venkatagirigowda for the offences punishable under S. 500, 501 r/w S. 120 (B) of IPC with the allegation that the petitioners got published in the newspaper Indian Express two news items dated 27-11-1996 and 28-11-1996 making imputations against him and other family members, which are defamatory in nature. The respondents alleged that the imputations in the said two news items which are extracted in para 6 of the complaint are totally false and malicious and all the petitioners and A-1 were well aware that the said imputations are false. The Complainant, his brothers and sisters have never acted as brokers in respect of any dealing leading to corruption as alleged. The allegation that the complainant has acquired wealth by illegal and corrupt means is also false, when the assets have been acquired by him was acquired in lawful manner and the same is transparent. The allegation that the complainant is involved in granite scandal or that he built black assets are false. The allegation that he owns a house at Padmanabhanagar is also false. It is true that the complainant is building a nursing home, but borrowed loan from bank for the said purpose and the said transaction is found in Income-tax returns. It is also alleged in the complaint that the imputations concerning the complainant are per se defamatory and that they have been made maliciously with the object of injuring the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of the members of the public. In an attempt to tarnish the imgage of the whole family, such imputations are made even concerning to mother of the complainant. Respondent/complainant therefore, filed the abovesaid complaint in the trial Court. Learned Magistrate has taken the cognisance of the offences alleged and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, ordered for registering the case against the petitioners and A-1 and for issuance of process against them by an order dated 11-12-1996. Petitioners therefore, approached this court by filing these petitions seeking for quashing all the above proceedings against them.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.