Sending Apology Letter Can Put Matter At Rest: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Order Directing Case Registration Against Asstt. Commissioner Allegedly Defaming Senior Advocate

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the Order directing registration of a case against the Assistant Commissioner being accused of defaming a Senior Advocate.

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Revision Petition seeking setting aside of the Trial Court’s Order by which it was directed that a defamation case be registered.

A Single Bench of Justice V. Srishananda said, “… this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the revision petitioner to send an apology letter to the respondent who is a Senior member of the Bar at Kundapura and if wisdom prevails on the respondent, matter could be put at rest.”

Senior Advocate H.S. Chandramouli appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate K. Prasanna Shetty appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

In this case, a private Complaint was filed before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class) alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Petitioner by the Respondent. The Respondent was a Senior Advocate and a member of Kundapura Bar Association. It was alleged by him that he was hurt by the Petitioner’s conduct. The Petitioner was Assistant Commissioner. It was further alleged that the Respondent repeatedly requested the Petitioner to hear the arguments as he intended to enlighten a few facts that would not consume more than five minutes but the Petitioner said to have acted erratically and became furious and shouted at the Respondent again in a harsh voice, "No, No, get out from here".

The Respondent, with an intention to avoid the ugly incident, voluntarily walked out of the Court and a number of advocates and officials present in the Court witnessed the said incident. Hence, on a private Complaint, the Trial Judge directed the case to be registered against the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court in the above regard, observed, “There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. But one distinction in the case on hand that needs to be borne in mind while appreciating the case of revision petitioner is that, the revision petitioner is not an official who was discharging more official function.”

The Court further noted that, even assuming that the sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was not necessary by accepting the arguments of the Respondent for the limited purpose of disposal of the Revision Petition, the Respondent cannot and should not support the impugned Order as the Trial Magistrate failed to understand the required sanction in view of the Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

“In other words, the revision petitioner herein had double insulation whereby the Trial Magistrate should have been very slow in accepting the case of the revision petitioner before taking cognizance and registering the criminal case against the revision petitioner”, it added.

The Court also said that such an Order passed by the Trial Magistrate ignoring the Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, has resulted in improper exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Magistrate calling for interference by the Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

“Having said so, the only alternative left for this Court is to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Magistrate to proceed with the case from the stage of taking cognizance by directing the respondent to obtain the necessary sanction”, it ordered.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned Order and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal.

Cause Title- Charulata Somal v. Shiriyara Muddanna Shetty (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:49505)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate H.S. Chandramouli and Advocate Rajath.

Respondent: K. Prasanna Shetty.

Click here to read/download the Judgment