Westlaw Asia Delivery Summary

Request made by : NOVUS IP USER

Request made on : Sunday, 12 June, 2022 at 10:43 HKT

Client ID : insvkm-1
Title : R. Gururajan S/o K. Raghothaman v
Girish G. D. S/o Late G. Dasappa and
others
Delivery selection : Current Document
Number of documents delivered : 1
 Karnataka High Court

20 January 2021

R. Gururajan S/o K. Raghothaman

v
Girish G. D. S/o Late G. Dasappa and others
Case No : CRL. P. No. 1733/2020
Bench : H.P. Sandesh
Citation : 2021 Indlaw KAR 1443
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying this Court to set aside the order dated
05.10.2019 issuing process against the petitioners and the same is registered as
C.C.No.5638/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, that the complainants have filed the complaint against this
petitioner who is the son in law of complainants 1 & 2 and brother-in-law of complainant no.3 with
regard to exchange of e-mails between them. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to refer the
sworn statement of the complainant and issued process vide order dated 05.10.2019. The
learned Magistrate while issuing the process, has passed the following order:
"Perused complaint, sworn statement of the complainant and documents produced in sworn
statement materials placed before the court, at this stage prima facie establishes that, the
accused has committed offence punishable U/s 499 and 500 of IPC.and there are sufficient
materials to proceed against the accused. Hence taken the cognizance offence punishable U/s
499 and 500 of IPC.
Hence following:
ORDER
Office is directed to register criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 499
and 500 of IPC.in register no.3.
Issue summons to accused by 05.12.2019."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the e-mails are exchanged between this
petitioner and the complainants. The same is not published and the same is inter se between the
parties and the same does not attract the provisions of Sections 499 of IPC.and also it does not
constitute an offence under Section 500 of IPC. Learned Counsel would also submit that there
was family dispute between this petitioner and his wife and in that connection, e-mails are
exchanged between this petitioner and also the respondents herein. He submits that the
marriage has been dissolved on 10.04.2018 and the present complaint is filed on 03.01.2018
during the pendency of the divorce petition. The learned Trial Judge has recorded the sworn
statement of the witnesses subsequent to the divorce i.e., on 29.12.2018 and has not applied his
mind as to whether the allegations made in the private complaint constitute the ingredients of
Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the contents of the
complaint, it is clear that the e-mails are exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents
when there was a dispute with regard to the marriage. The offences alleged are under Sections
499 & 500 of IPC, which read as under:
"499. Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to
harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of
such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the
feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an
association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.
Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that
person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers
the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome
state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
500. Punishment for defamation.- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
5. Having perused the provision under Section 499 of IPC.which indicates that whoever, by
words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason
to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. In the case on hand, admittedly, e-mails are
exchanged between the parties and the same has not been published and no imputation has
been made with an intention to harm or tarnish the reputation of a person and it is only a private
affair between the petitioner and the respondents. Having perused the ingredients of Sections
499 & 500 of IPC.and also the explanations 1 to 4 of Section 499 of IPC.and also considering the
factual aspects of the case that it was an inter se exchange of e-mails between the parties that
too with regard to matrimonial dispute, hence, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any
imputation, harm or loss of reputation to the respondents in the eyes of general public, the same
does not attract the ingredients of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has
failed to consider the same while issuing process against the petitioner. No doubt, the Magistrate
has recorded the sworn statement of the witnesses before issuing the process, but failed to apply
his judicious mind with regard to the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge &
JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.No.5638/2019 (PCR No.3592/2017) is hereby quashed.
Petition allowed
© 2019 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited