RAHUL N. BALDOTA, S/O SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BALDOTA Vs. M/S. OBALAPURAM MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY SRI. B.V. SREENIVAS REDDY, S/O VENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are considered together as the subject matter pertains to certain alleged defamatory statements contained in the weekly magazine, "The Week", dated 20th September 2009, attributed to the petitioners who are the accused in the complaint that is filed, against them. The brief facts as may be relevant to each of the petitioners, is as follows: In Criminal Petition No. 7499/2010, the petitioner is named as Accused No. 7 in the complaint lodged by Messrs. Oblapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Bellary and one Shri. Gali Janardhan Reddy, who is said to be the Promoter -Director of the first complainant, and who was incidentally the Minister for Tourism and Infrastructure Development, Government of Karnataka, who is represented by one B.V. Srinivasa Reddy, in the complaint. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7503/2010 is a private limited company which is arrayed as Accused No. 6 in the aforesaid complaint. The said company is engaged in mining operations and exports minerals in the course of its business. The alleged defamatory statements in the publication aforesaid is also attributed to the said petitioner. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7690/2010 who is arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the aforesaid complaint, is a former Member of Parliament from Bellary District, against whom also, defamatory statements are attributed. In Criminal Petition No. 10292/2011, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused No. 5 and Accused No. 8. Accused No. 8 is said to have died during the pendency of the proceedings. Accused No. 5, who is the son of Accused No. 8, is engaged in mining activity in Bellary District and is accused by the complainants of having made defamatory statements, in the complaint. The gist of the complaint is as follows: The complainant No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in mining iron ore and has its operations around the district of Anantpur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and claims that its annual total income runs into several hundred crores. Complainant No. 2 is said to be the Promotor -Director of Complainant No. 1, as already stated and it is claimed that he enjoys a high reputation in the business as well as the political arena. The complainants are aggrieved by the article published in the aforesaid weekly under the caption "Rape of Bellary - Mining lords redraw Karnataka - Andhra border, drain government" authored by one N. Bhanutej, a Correspondent for the weekly and it is alleged that the contents of the article are false and the same has been printed, published and circulated at the behest and on the instructions of the petitioners herein and it is claimed that the petitioners are inimically disposed towards Complainant No. 1 and that the article is the outcome of a political vendetta. It is contended that the so called investigative report, which the article claims to be, is misleading and has the effect of bringing down the reputation of Complainant No. 2 in the eyes of the general public and the people of the State of Karnataka and elsewhere in the country and throughout the world, since it is claimed that Complainant No. 2 is known by persons in various other countries of the world with whom he has business and personal relationships. It is stated that since the Assembly of Karnataka was in session, at the time the article was published, the same was timed in such a way so as to cause maximum damage to the reputation of Complainant No. 2. It is denied that there is any encroachment of various mines in Karnataka by Complainant No. 1 and the alleged material in the possession of the author of the article namely, particulars of any survey conducted by one Dr. U.V. Singh and reports of the Lokayukta confirming the alleged interstate border violation are said to be false and concocted and that the matter is subjudice before this Court, in its writ jurisdiction, in several pending writ petitions as well as in pending proceedings before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The several allegations contained in the article of violation said to have been committed by Complainant No. 1 are specifically denied. It is claimed that the article is aimed at influencing the mind of the Court in various pending cases not only before the High Courts but also before the Apex Court in so far as the complainants are concerned and that the accused are also liable for contempt of Court. It is in this vein that the complaint had been lodged. The Court of Magistrate, Bellary has opined that from a reading of the article, a prima facie case was disclosed which if established, would be punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity), and has taken cognisance for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and has directed registration of a criminal case by its order dated 26.02.201. It is that which is under challenge in the present petitions.

(2.) THIS Court in the first instance, had issued notice to the respondents and after the respondents had entered appearance through counsel, an interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted.

(3.) IT is contended that the article read as a whole would indicate that apart from the petitioners, statements made by various persons including authorities such as the Lokayukta, are profusely quoted throughout and other details are furnished which cannot be attributed to the petitioners. If read in context, the statements attributed to the petitioner cannot be said to be defamatory, even assuming that the statements can be attributed to the petitioners. The complaint also does not specify the defamatory statement or statements attributable to each of the petitioners, especially in so far as Complainant No. 10 is concerned, which is apparent from the extracts of the alleged statements attributed to the respective petitioners, in which event, even if all the allegations in the complaint go unrebutted, it cannot be said that there is any material to indicate that the petitioners have made defamatory statements against complainant No. 1 and therefore, the Court of Magistrate having taken cognisance and having issued process against the petitioners, is without any basis and is a mechanical exercise which causes prejudice to each of the petitioners. It is further contended that in so far as the second complainant is concerned, he has approached the court through a representative, which is impermissible in law. In terms of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), no court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC except upon a complaint made by persons aggrieved by the offence and it is only where such a person is under the age of 18 years, or is an idiot or lunatic, or is suffering from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who according to the local customs and manner, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, that some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. In the instant case, there is no preamble in the complaint indicating the reason as to why Complainant No. 2 is sought to be represented by another. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings by the Court in taking cognisance is vitiated, in so far as Complainant No. 2 is concerned. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would contend that neither at the instance of Complainant No. 1 nor on the allegations made on behalf of Complainant No. 2, can any case be sustained against the petitioners.