YALLAPPA K HALPETI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101290 OF 2026
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAPPA K. HALPETI
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: JOURNALIST,
EDITOR, PUBLISHE AND OWNER OF
ADIVASI GHARJANE MONTHLY NEWSPAPER,
KARNATAKA MEDA GIRIJANANGADA
KALYANA SEVA SANGHA, HUBBALLI,
R/O. KESTESHWA COLONY,
R.N SHETTTY ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
DHARWAD BENCH.
2. SURESH S/O. PARAMESHWAR PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DASANAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
3. PARAMESHWAR S/O. HUCCHAPPA IDAGOD
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DASANAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
4. C.P. PATIL
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRI GURU
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
MEDARA KETESHWARA TRUST,
SRI KETESHWAR MAHAMATH MEDAR GURUPEETH
BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-
NOW R/AT. MALAGI,
TQ: MUNDAGOD,
DIST: UTTARAKANNADA-581346.
5. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. PARAMESHWAR PATIIL
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE AND PRESIDENT,
AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRI GURU
MEDARA KETESHWARA TRUST,
SRI KETESHWAR MAHAMATH MEDAR GURUPEETH
BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-
NOW R/AT. MALAGI, TQ: MUNDAGOD,
DIST: UTTARAKANNADA-581346.
6. MANJUNATH EMMADI
BASAVAMEDARA KETESHWARA SWAMY
S/O. BHARMAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, PONTIFF,
AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRI GURU
MEDARA KETESHWARA TRUST,
CHITRADURGA-
NOW R/AT. MALAGI,
TQ: MUNDAGOD,
DIST: UTTARAKANNADA-581346.
R/O. OPP. NIJALINGAPPA SAMADHI,
SEEBAR, CHITRADURGA-577501.
7. AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRI GURU
MEDARA KETESHWARA TRUST
CHITRADURGA-
R/O. OPP. NIJALINGAPPA SAMADHI
SEEBAR, CHITRADURGA-
R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSONS/TRUSTEES,
S. SHANKRAPPA S/O. SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE,
R/O. 1ST CROSS, BHARAGERIBEEDI,
HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS,
2023, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING/ CLUBBING OF
THE CASES REGISTERED IN PCR NO. 213/2024 BEFORE II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRSI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.
356 OF BNS, PCR NO. 107/2024 LATER REGISTERED AS CC NO.
775/2024 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD, FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 356, 356(2), 356(3) OF BNS AND
SECTION 66-A OF IT ACT 2000, PCR NO. 761/2024 LATER
REGISTERED AS C.C NO. 731/2026 BEFORE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 356
(2) OF BNS, PCR NO. 2407/2024 BEFORE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HUBBALLI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 356,
356(2), 356(3), 356(4) OF BNS AND SECTION 66-A OF IT ACT AND
ALL THE CASES BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY JMFC., COURT AT
HUBBALLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused, Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavar, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State
and learned counsel Sri.Girish A.Yadawad for respondent Nos.2
to 7.
2. The petitioner/accused has filed this petition under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking to consolidating/clubbing of the following cases:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
i) PCR No.213/2024 before the II Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sirsi for the offences punishable under
Section 356 of BNS, 2023.
ii) PCR No.107/2024 later registered as
C.C.No.775/2024 before Civil Judge and JMFC,
MUndgod, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 356, 356(2), 356(3) of BNS, 2023
and Section 66-A of I.T.Act, 2000.
iii) PCR No.761/2024 later registered as
C.C.No.731/2026 before II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Chitradurga for the offences punishable under
Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023; and
iv) PCR No. 2407/2024 before IV Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hubballi for the offences punishable under
Section 356, 356(2), 356(3), 356(4) of BNS, 2023
and Section 66-A of I.T.Act, 2000 and all the cases
be transferred to any JMFC, Court at Hubballi Taluk,
Dharwad District.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
The petitioner is a journalist, publishing articles in the
public interest in his publication Adivasi Gharjane Monthly
Newspaper, Karnataka Meda Girijanangada Kalyana Seva
Sangha (R), Hubballi, registered before Government of India
and is prestigiously running the said publication in the public
interest since 2015. The petitioner in his publication in the
month of September 2024, in Volume 11, Issue 44, has
published an article named as “Medara Janagada Special
Bulletin”, fairly bringing to the light of public about the
misappropriation of funds and other illegal activities related to
the trust functioning. Then raised an outrage in the Medar
Community and the respondents have filed multiple cases for
defamation against the petitioner at multiple places in the State
of Karnataka on the same set of facts based on the same
incident.
4. The details of the several complaints are as under:
Case No. Court Complainant State of O/P/U/S
Name the case
PCR No. Prl. Civil
213/2024 Judge & I
Addl. JMFC,
Sirsi
Resp. No.2 For Sworn Sec- 356
& 3 Statement of BNS
PCR Civil Judge, Resp. No.4 Appearance Sec-356,
No.107/2024 & JMFC, of Accused 356(2),
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
C.C. Mudagod. 356(3), of
No.775/2024 BNS and
Sec-66-A
of IT Act.
PCR
No.2407/2024
IV Addl.
Civil Judge
& JMFC,
Hubballi
Resp No.5 Sworn Sec-356,
Statement 356(2),
356(3),
356(4) of
BNS and
Sec-66-A
of IT Act.
PCR
No.761/2024
CC
No.731/2026
II Addl.
Civil Judge
& JFMC,
Chitradurga
Resp. No.6 & Accused Sec- 356
7 Summons (2) of
BNS
5. Learned counsel Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni appearing
for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a
senior citizen, he has underwent multiple surgeries and is
suffering from medical illness. Presently, he is situated in
Hubballi. Hence, he prayed to pass an order consolidating or
clubbing of the cases at Hubballi court.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Girish A.Yadawad appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 7 filed objections and contended that the
present petition is filed seeking transfer of the aforesaid cases
wherein the respondents have filed different private complaints
stating that the petitioner has published an article regarding
misappropriation of funds and other illegal activities relating to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
the trust, which is far away from the truth indicating
defamation by the petitioner. The present petitioner has sought
transfer and consolidation of the cases under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, whereas the transfer of criminal cases is governed
under Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 and separate criminal petition
has to be filed for each of the PCR/CC in order to seek the
transfer. Further, all the cases are not in the same stage and
seeking transfer of all the cases to the same court would hinder
prosecuting the case. It is further contended that since all the
cases are concerning offence committed under Section 356 of
BNSS, 2023, the complainants being dominus litus , have to
prove that their reputation was damaged in the specific place,
where the article was published, and the witness who will
adduce the evidence reserved in those specific places.
Therefore, transferring all those cases to one place, that is
convenient to the petitioner will cause hardship to the
respondents and their witnesses who stay in different places,
which in turn will harm the prosecution of the case. It is further
contended that the transfer is sought based on the medical
incapacity of the petitioner stating that he has undergone
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
multiple surgeries and is unable to travel to attend the court
proceedings. But the law provides an efficacious remedy in
such cases where the petitioner can apply for an exemption
from personal appearance under Section 228 of BNSS, 228 or
seek permission to appear through video conference to attend
the court proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 to 7 prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The perusal of the material available on record, the
petitioner has sought the relief to consolidate or clubbing of the
cases pending before various courts for similar offences
punishable under Section 356 of BNS 2023. In all the criminal
cases, the petitioner is arrayed as accused, and in all
complaints, the defacto complainants or either a representative
or disciple of the trust in issue pertains to the same trust.
Section 186 of the then Code of Civil Procedure 1973 or Section
BNS 206 of BNSS 2023 reads as under:
“ 186. High Court to decide, the case of doubt,
district where inquiry or trial shall take place .-
Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the
same offence and a question arises as to which of them
ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall
be decided.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
8. Section 186 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that, where
two or more courts have been cognizance of the same offence
and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into
or try that offence the question shall be decided. Whereas, in
the instant case, the petitioner published article in the
newspaper wherein it is alleged that he has made defamatory
statement against the trust. In all four different cases, the
complainants made allegation against the present petitioner
being aggrieved by the defamatory statement published in an
article named as “Medara Janagsda Special Bulletin”.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S UBRAMANIAN
WAMY VS NION OF NDIA INISTRY OF AW AND THERS
S U I , M L O
reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 , in paragraph 206, held as
under:
“In the course of hearing, it has been argued that
the multiple complaints are filed at multiple places and
there is abuse of the process of the court. In the absence
of any specific provisions to determine the place of
proceedings in a case of defamation, it shall be governed
by the provisions of Chapter XIII of the CrPC-
Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials.
A case is ordinarily tried where the Offence is committed
(Section 177). The expression used in Section 177 is
“shall ordinarily be inquired and tried” by a court within
whose jurisdiction it was committed. Whereas “shall”
brings a mandatory requirement, the word “ordinarily”
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
brings a situational variation which results in an
interpretation that the case may be tried as per the
further provisions of the Chapter. In case the place of
committing the offence is uncertain, the case may also
be tried where the offence was partly committed or
continues to be committed (Section 178). The case may
also be tried where the consequence of the act ensues
(Section 179). The other provisions in the chapter also
deal with regard to certain specific circumstances.
Section 186 CrPC gives the High Court powers to
determine the issue if two or more courts take
cognizance of the same offence. If cases are filed in two
or more courts in different jurisdictions, then the
Jurisdiction to determine the case lies with the High
Court under whose jurisdiction the first complaint was
filed. Upon the decision of the High Court regarding the
place of trial, the proceedings in all other places shall be
discontinued. Thus, it is again left to the facts and
circumstances of each case to determine the right forum
for the trial of case of defamation. Thus, CrPC governs
the territorial jurisdiction and needless to say, if there is
abuse of the said jurisdiction, the person grieved by the
issue of summons can take appropriate steps in
accordance with law. But that cannot be a reason for
declaring the provision unconstitutional.”
10. Therefore, the criminal cases pending before
learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Sirsi, Civil
Judge and JMFC Mundgod and II Additional Civil Judge, JMFC,
Chitradurga, pending in PCR No.213/2024, PCR No.107/2024
and PCR No.761/2024 have to be clubbed together and tried by
IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, as the fact in issue
and the subject matter are one and the same between same
parties.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17223
CRL.P No. 101290 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020091252026
11. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed .
ii) The criminal cases pending before learned Principal
Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Sirsi in PCR
No.213/2024; Civil Judge and JMFC Mundgod in PCR
No.107/2024 (C.C.No.775/2024); and II Additional
Civil Judge, JMFC, Chitradurga in PCR No.761/2024
(C.C.No.731/2026) are clubbed together and tried by
the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.
iii) The petitioner/accused is directed to co-operate during
the course of trial without seeking unnecessary
adjournments.
iv) The trial court is directed to dispose the matter in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:GSM,
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19