J S CHIKKANNAVAR Vs. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioners herein 36 members of Dharwad Bar Association against whom process was issued by the order of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, dated 29-8-1987 on a private complaint filed by the respondent here in Venkatesh Bhimrao Kulkarni another member of the same Bar. That complaint was for offences under Section 499, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The operative portion of the order at para-4 reads as follows :-

(2.) Referring to the ingredients of the offences of criminal intimidation as ennumerated in Section 503 I.P.C., the Court said at para-3 that by such resolution the accused 2 to 54 have prima facie compelled the complainant to do an act "which that person is legally entitled to do". Further, the resolution of the Bar Association dismembering him from the Association is sufficient to create a disrepute of the complainant in the public. This is the reason by which process came to be issued against these petitioners. That order is now questioned in this petition and they aver that members of Dharwad Bar Association have got a very good reputation throughout Karnataka. The Bar Association resolved that the respondent herein should be expelled from the membership of the Association. The petitioners have not at all threatened the respondent herein with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. He was dismembered from the Association for the reason that he has acted detrimental to interests of Dharwad Bar Association in as much as he has circulated number of pamphlets in the public which defame and lower the dignity of Dharwad Bar Association and its members. They maintained that they have not at all compelled him to do an act which he was legally not entitled to do.

(3.) The respondent, though duly served, has remained absent and he is not even represented. Arguments were heard for the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same points urged in the grounds of the petition and contended that simply because the respondent was dismembered from the Bar Association it cannot be said that petitioners have committed any offence falling under Section 506 Part-I of the I.P.C. Though the trial Court has reproduced the contents of Section 503 I.P.C. defining "criminal intimidation", it is necessary to reproduce the same here also."