, Mtmisssfi KUMAR «S,f_Q«SATHISH SUVARNA
CRL.PzF.£.I;ED U/S. 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
, *9R0cEED1NGs m <::c.No. 3486/98 (p.<:.1~:o. 1050/973
are 'rm-.:_'§':;E are THE JMF-'C., u comm; MANGALORE.
-. This petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the
" V made the folluwing:
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3 A' A
DATED THIS THE 12% DAY;:J(5F :JA.NUAR'§"QOQQ,
BEFQRE %
THE HON'BLI3 MR. N.'.rmARt)A
CRIMINAL or 2003
BETWEEN:
1. LATHA SHENQY' I:x.fi_') NARAs§m'HA.sH~EI~JO¥V«
AGE: MAJOR .1 _ 1;. ,
R/A L:xXM1;'NIV'A.S;"AI:$HAt;a NA__GAR=_
III CROSS, RA1v1Arg1UR'?HI..NAGAR" j
BANGALORE .. PETYPIONER
(By Sri:}_ K PJ1"NAv'F}U{AJ,' .abv§)'cA-'rE)
AD
uun--¢-wIwI-
- AGE: MAJOR».'
. RmNo.1'.«a2g3;+vARsHA'
_ PERLAGURE-caoss, PADAVINANGADY
"MANCxAL@RF,_ -3' RESPONDENT
(l3y”Sri. B-EQESHPANDE, ADVGCATE)
5. It is seen from the recQ3fd’s,– –
respondent/complainant had 1eg9J’i1di§i$e’~Vf£>’–th€:’4 ” ‘V
.2
Editor, Printer and Publisher of
and they have pleaded t11eir4..:§poie’gies VVh.;a,ve *
stated that copy of ~ petitioner
was published in apoleges
pleaded by :Pub1isher, the
eomplaiiaafff as accused, on the
other cited as witnesses,
counsel for petitioner
regaxfding of the complaint for not
” –i.m;;1e;a.d.ing”e* Edite1fi”Pfir1ter and Publisher cannot be
A from the records that petitioner had
complaint on 14.1.1997 maldng certain’
d:.”defe.z;§iato1y statements against respondent. The
..pet1’tioner instead of pursuing the complaint iodged by
‘ her, had given a copy of the complaint to the Editor of
newspaper ‘Hosasanje’ and got the same published in
the said paper on 22.1.1997. I” CE.” 9% firm
7. On consideration of the ‘IHIosas.aI1j%*;:’ ‘
issue of 22.1.1997, I find that st€1ti§iIitin1:$4’ma’d§’
respondent are per Se defamatorfi V
petitioner, the case would ” to
Section 499, has to
.. I .3 ‘K
8. In View of the fortagoillsg r 35-1′ L?
reasons statefi any merit in
the pet3’tioi.3,j,!VV is’ dismissed. Since
the year 1998, the trial
court trial.
Sd/-
Judge