The Karnataka High Court recently quashed proceedings brought under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in which a Magistrate court referred a defamation complaint filed under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code to the police for further investigation.
In doing so, a single judge bench led by Honourable Justice M. Naga Prasanna in the case of Prashanth Sambargi Vs State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No. 349 of 2021) relied on the Apex court’s decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union Of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, which held that when a complaint brought before the Magistrate involves an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, Because of the specific bar contained in Section 199 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot exercise powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to direct Police to register a crime and then investigate the offence.
Section 199 states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC unless a person aggrieved by the offence files a complaint.
“In light of the Apex court’s judgment and that of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Kerala (supra) interpreting Sections 199, 499, and 500 of the IPC, the order of the learned Magistrate directing investigation and all proceedings thereto would be a nullity in law,” said a single judge bench led by Justice M Nagaprasanna.
“Therefore, the proceedings must be obliterated, and the matter remitted back to the learned Magistrate to resume such proceedings, taking into account the observations made during the course of the order,” it continued.
Case Details:
Prashant Sambargi, the petitioner, had approached the court to call into question proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The complainant, who had taken a hand loan from the petitioner, filed a private complaint alleging that after the petitioner’s cases against him were dismissed, he circulated messages on a WhatsApp group accusing the complainant of being a cheat.
Petitioners’ submissions:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the complaint could not be maintained because of the Ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC, which prevents defamation from becoming punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, and that Section 67 of the Act could not be invoked because it is not even defamatory and circulated among a specific group.
Complainant submissions:
Counsel for the complainant argued that a statement made against the complainant in the WhatsApp group ‘Parivartane’ is defamatory on its face because the complainant has yet to be found guilty in any of the cases. The mere registration of a crime against the complainant does not imply that he will be defamed and his reputation tarnished among his peers.
Furthermore, the Ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC is always a question of fact, according to the argument.
The complainant’s argument was supported by the High Court Government Pleader.
Court findings:
The court also cited a decision by the Kerala High Court in the case of Suresh v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2019 (4) KLT 106, which held that a Magistrate does not have jurisdiction under Section 155(2) to order the Police to register a crime and conduct an investigation in a petition involving allegations under Section 500 of the IPC.
“The proceedings require to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to the learned Magistrate to take up such proceedings bearing in mind the observations made during the course of the order,” the instant Court said.
As a result, it granted the petition and overturned the magistrate court’s decision. It also ordered the trial court to proceed with the case from the point of complaint registration forward, taking all necessary steps in accordance with the law.
