MALATESH ANGUR Vs. J M RAJASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the impugned complaint filed vide Annexure-A dated 03.03.2009 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on the file of II Addl.J.M.F.C., Ranebennur in C.C.No.424/2009 (P.C.No. 31/2009). The further relief for quashing the impugned order of taking cognizance vide Annexure-B dated 16.05.2009 in the said proceeding and also for quashing the impugned order Annexure-G dated 27.04.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2009 on the file of Court of Fast Track Judge, Ranebennur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the complainant as per the complaint averments that respondent No.2 in this petition is the complainant, who is a government employee and also he calls himself as Amateur Journalist, who has published many articles and books on the subject of law and also been writing articles in many newspapers. On invitation by the Department of Kannada and Culture, complainant is said to have delivered speeches on many occasions. Similarly on the occasion of 2008 Haveri Zilla Utsav on 07.12.2008 in the ninth session, it was decided to invite the complainant to speak on the subject "Mass media and Right to Information Act." The complainant though not being Law Graduate, but as a citizen of the country he has knowledge of law and therefore he is said to have willingness to speak on the subject, in order to educate the general public and invitation cards were also printed and many of his fans were eager to listen to him. Further for the said lecture, he supposed to have received Rs.800/- as remuneration from the Deputy Commissioner. But on 04.12.2008 accused No.1/Reporter has published an article indicating that though the complainant being a government employee and not a reporter raised propriety of his participation at the function and by which the Deputy Commissioner has deleted his name from the function. As accused No.1 and 3, others who approached the Deputy Commissioner and later published articles in the newspapers were responsible for cancellation of his lecture, deprive his remuneration and thereby lowered his reputation, respect and laurels and thereby directly defamed the complainant. Complainant issued legal notice and on not receiving any reply from the accused filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused/petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 109 and 34 of I.P.C. On receipt of the complaint, trial court proceeded to record the sworn statement and on examination of complainant as PW1 and documents Ex.C1 to C11 took cognizance of the offences and ordered to register the case and issued summons to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have challenged the order of taking cognizance by preferring revision petition before the Fast Track Judge, Ranebennur in Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2009. Same came to be rejected by upholding the order of the J.M.F.C. Court, Ranebennur.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent/complainant.