IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2039
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G':_:RAr.<.r::é:aH»
Criminal Petition No.3:*z8'9';':ro_c.5 _; . E V
Between: 1
B.V. Secstaram,
S/0 Eats Vcnkataramana,
Aged about E30 years,
Director of Kannada Janatarangag _
News Pa.p<:1"(I\/Ianaging Editor), Va - 1 :.
P101: No.26/27, KSSIDC Industrial Area " '
Kumuia. l.'.§{. Dist. V L V E' PETITIONER
{By Sri.Asai'1c)l«:
And:
Shrj.Ge11'2g§a1.d.%;1ar "1'«Iarayar:--..1\§ayaIa:
@ 1
agedVal':;:m.-. 48 ye'ar3,!
Mana§gi.1.1g_§_Edia{Q:f,, * E'
» . Printer and ---Pubiisiier'
7 _Kar.ava1i E\JI1.;:'1javL1. Daily,
R/0. -Raika1'"'P1aza, " 4'
-- ~K_jarwar,. UK. Disirici. RESPONDENT
{By 4.35.' as réffiegde, Adv.)
This Criminal Petition is filed under S482 Cr.PC, praying toquash
the ortlttr passed by the iearned JMFC IE Court, Karwar, dated 9.1.2006
passed in PCR l\$o.122/2005 (C.C.No.42/2006), and etc.
The petition coming on for hearing this day, the Courtniade the
foiiowing: ' *
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the
JMFC ll Court, Karwar, dated 9.1.2006, in.,”Pcii§;i.g2/as–ai:.:i
as C.C.i\io.42/2006.
2. A private complaint was against. ‘petitioner and one
more person. This petitioner ‘,~-is thelvli/Ianaging Editor
of Kannada Daiiy “Janataranga”‘Wiiifhereini along with the
other eittcitxsed no.2wEditcir,i’printegcifiéinici defamatory articie
against the etirrivplainantl-» the effect that “lorry owners are
poor élllffl persons beijea.thf’lorry are nothing”. Further it is also
alleged tliz’ii..tghisi’~petitione.rhas published defamatory statement stating
thalZil’i§TIil”1t.:”‘i.()’V}’I”§(3s.§1I’.(d.”‘l’1ai’E3Sslflg the pubiic of the District, etc. Aiieging
‘gsuch (“leil’7r..iiiigi,toi4yil”_~g_ta’te’Inents pubiished by the petitioner, a private
lcomlpiaiiil filed. On the basis of the complaint, the learned
M_a’gis’iijz£iii:”;iooi«_.;i’nl”registered for offence u/s 500 IPC and ordered to issue
We
‘-.aJ
summons. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner.
4. According to the learned Counsel for
imputation of truth made in the public good gishnot a d’etaInlation,”andvit”is
not defamation to impute anything which is’~._tru_’e*concern.in’g .énj;y..pa:::-son,
if it be for public good. The imputationli_so._V.madeor publilsiied.t,_Hwhether1or
not it is For the public good, is a fact not amount
to defamation. He further tthati’*-thejirnputation if made or
published touching conduct or in good faith does
not amount to defamatioif-_:’.lV In circurnstarices, the order of the
learned Magistrate’~in taI{ii{i’g.g4coglni_7ia11ce’ and issuance of process is bad
in law.
.{;fg%i}r;iperusali ‘efythegtimpugned order passed by the learned
Magistratc-};«.o_n t_he.gstre~r1gth of private complaint filed after recording his
sworn Sli.£’:~I.(:’:.I.l71VCI1il;ii, it_v».i_s’~r1oticed that though there is such an imputation
i}i3iigl’li)ilSl”lC(Ti. Kannada daily which is said to be false, what is
b4i€’l’I’¥gg”1″!_()iil(;’C.d .is”that common imputation does not in any way attract
l”.:delfe41rr_iatiog1fi.” One cannot say that such publication was made to
})f[;/