CASE TITLE:
Divya & Anr Vs State Of Karnataka And Anr
DATE OF ORDER:
25th MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: DIVYA AND ANR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC); Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code
SUBJECT
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the prohibition under Section 199 CrPC on a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code would apply even if other offences were alleged in addition to Section 500 of the IPC. Section 199 states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI (Defamation) of the IPC unless a "complaint" is filed by someone who has been wronged.
BRIEF FACTS
- Both the petitioners and the complainant/second respondent live in the same apartment complex, "Brigade Gateway."
- The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the filing of a complaint on an alleged false incident tarnished the complainant's image in the eyes and minds of the apartment complex residents.
- On 06-06-2016, the Magistrate directed the jurisdictional Police to conduct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and submit a report. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the case for offences punishable under Sections 211, 499, 500 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
- It was argued that the Magistrate could not have ordered a police investigation into defamation because the police could not be involved.
- It was also argued that there is nothing defamatory in the complaint filed with the police or the President of the Association, and that the complainant cannot be considered an aggrieved person under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel for the second respondent contended that the petitioners had filed a false case against the complainant and that the allegations did require an investigation because Sections 211 and 34 of the IPC were also part of the FIR that was registered or the charge sheet that was filed by the Police after investigation, and that it is a matter of trial that the petitioners must come clean, as they have admittedly tarnished the complainant's image in the eyes of the public.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- According to the bench, "The current case involves defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. As a result, there can be no disagreement about how the learned Magistrate should take cognizance of the offence. Only a complaint may be taken into consideration, not a report filed by the police."
- "In the case at hand, when the complaint came to be registered, the learned Magistrate made an error in directing an investigation to be conducted by the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter takes cognizance of the offences on the report of the Police," it continued.
- The bench then cited Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, which held that where the complaint before the Magistrate involves an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, 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 due to the specific bar contained in Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. This would apply even in cases where other laws were allegedly violated in addition to Section 500 of the IPC.
CONCLUSION
- As a result, the court ruled, "In light of the Apex Court's decision and that of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Kerala (supra) interpreting Sections 199, 499, and 500 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate's order directing investigation is rendered unsustainable, and all proceedings related to it would be void in law. As a result, the proceedings must be terminated and the matter remanded to the learned Magistrate to resume such proceedings in light of the observations made during the course of the order."
- Thus, it granted the petition, overturned the magistrate court's order, and directed the Magistrate to continue proceedings in the case from the stage of complaint registration, as well as all appropriate action thereon, in accordance with the law.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
