BRIJESH PATEL Vs. H S PUTTA KEMPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC 2566/2009 arising out of PCR 9814/2008.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the respondents were the members of the Managing Committee of the Karnataka State Cricket Association for the year 1995-96.1997-1998. It was during their term the civil work contract was given to one C. A. Varadaraju who has completed the work. They came to know that the work executed by Varadaraju was of poor quality. However, civil suit was filed by Varadaraju only for recovery of money before the Civil Court. The 1st petitioner as Secretary filed a written statement as against the suit filed for recovery of amount. In the written statement filed, alleging that the petitioner had made baseless allegations against the respondents and that it amounted to per se defamation and also stating that another written statement is filed by the 2nd petitioner during August 2006 casting aspersions on the respondents which amounted to defamation, a private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 7-2-2009 for the offences punishable under Ss. 500 and 501, I. P. C. The same has been assailed in this petition on various grounds.

(3.) According to the petitioner's counsel, the alleged written statement filed by the 1 st petitioner on 18-6-2001 and the words used are not per se defamatory and it falls within the ninth exception to S. 499, I. P. C. Only to protect the interest of the Association, as office bearer he has taken a contention and neither the statement is defamatory nor he made such a statement with an intention to defame the respondents. In the usual course written statement was filed to protect the interest of the Association and it is done in good faith. It is also his submission that the affidavit filed during August 2006 by the 2nd petitioner the then President, per se was not defamatory and similarly, it falls within the ninth exception to S. 499,I. P. C. The order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is without application of mind and beyond the period of limitation which is in violation of Ss. 468 and 469. Cr. P. C. Contending that initiation of proceedings against the petitioners in the circumstances, is abuse of process of Court, learned counsel has sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the instance of the respondents.