SRI. BASANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA PATIL YATNAL vs SRI. SHIVANANDA S PATIL

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12886 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI. BASANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA PATIL YATNAL,
S/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL YATNAL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
MEMBER OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
VIJAYAPURA CITY, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/AT FARM HOUSE, SINDAGI ROAD,
AINAPURA TALUKU, VIJAYAPURA - 586104.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DALWAI VENKATESH,ADVOCATE)







AND:

SRI. SHIVANANDA S PATIL,
S/O. SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NEAR JAMKHANDI CROSS,
OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, JAMKHANDI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVI B NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI/SMT VIJETHA R NAIK,ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) ALLOW THE
PRESENT CRL.P BY EXERCISING THE INHERENT POWERS OF
THIS HONBLE COURT U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023.b) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DTD 27.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLII
ACJM, BENGALURU IN PCR.NO.9136/2024, PRODUCED HEREIN
AS ANNEXURE-D, WHEREBY COGNIZANCE WAS TAKEN
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 500 OF
IPC, 1860, CORRESPONDING TO SEC.356(2) OF BNS, 2023
AND SUMMONS WAS ORDERED TO BE ISSUED AND ETC.





Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06TH NOVEMBER, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER
The short question that arises in this petition is,
At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process for
offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code,
whether Explanation-4 to Section 499 requires the complainant
to examine a witness who states that, in that person's own
estimation, the complainant's reputation has been lowered; or
would it suffice if the statement of a witness other than the
complainant, or other materials indicate that the imputation
has lowered the complainant's reputation in the estimation of
others?
1. The petitioner/accused is assailing the order dated
27.11.2025 taking cognizance of an offence under Section
356(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') in PCR
No.9136/2024 by XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


2. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated
18.08.2026 passed by the LXXXI Additional Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, in Criminal Revision Petition No.628/2025, whereby
the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in PCR No.9136/2024 is
affirmed.
3. The third prayer is to quash the entire proceedings
in PCR No.9136/2024.
4. The respondent is the complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/complainant.
6. The complaint is filed on 15.07.2024 for an offence
under Section 356 of the BNS in respect of defamatory
statement allegedly made by the accused on 21.06.2024 in a
public gathering and broadcast on 23.06.2024 on a YouTube
channel.
7. Thus, it is evident that the alleged offence
committed is under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the
complaint is lodged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance based on
the statement of the complainant and the two witnesses as the
requirements of Explanation-4 of Section 499 of IPC or Section
356 of BNS are not met.
9. Drawing the Court’s attention to the sworn
statements of the complainant and his two witnesses, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
complainant has stated that his reputation is lowered in the
estimation of others because of the imputation. The two
witnesses examined on his behalf have also stated that the
complainant's reputation is lowered; however, at the same time
the witnesses have also stated that the allegations are false.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge
that unless the person, other than the complainant, in whose
estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered makes a
statement to that effect before the Court, the requirement of
Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or Section 356(1) of the
BNS is not fulfilled and cognizance for the said offence cannot
be taken.

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the contents of the complaint
disclose the statements made by the accused. The accused has
not disputed the statement made. The statements made are
per se defamatory. The statements have been widely circulated
on social media.
12. In his sworn statement the complainant has stated
that because of the imputation made by the accused, the
complainant’s reputation is lowered in the estimation of others.
The complainant has cited 3 witnesses. At this stage, 2
witnesses have been examined. Those two witnesses have
stated that the complainant’s reputation has gone down in the
estimation of others because of the defamatory statements
made by the accused.
13. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that as the
statement is per se defamatory, at the stage of taking
cognizance, the Magistrate need not insist on a statement of a
third person to say that the complainant's reputation has been
lowered in that person’s estimation.
14. The Court has considered the contentions raised
and perused the records.

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


15. The impugned order taking cognizance for the
offence runs into 17 pages and operative portion of the order
reads as under:-
“Acting under Section 223 of the BNSS 2023,
Cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (356(2) of BNS 2023) is taken as
against the accused.
Office to Register this case in Register-III as C.C. and
issue summons to the Accused returnable by: 12.12.2025."
16. While passing the said order, the Court has referred
to the contents of the complaint and also taken note of
enactment of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the repeal of the Indian
Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
17. The Trial Court has referred to the transcript of the
pen drive and the video clippings and also referred to the

statement of the 2 witnesses.
18. The Trial Court has also referred to the judgment of
1
the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs Union Of India ,
2
Balraj Khanna And Others Vs Moti Ram Chaman Lal Vs

1
(2016) 7 SCC 221
2
(1971 (3) SCC 399),

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


3
State Of Punjab Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash
4
Kushnarao Gorntyal , to take a view that prima facie case is
made out to take a cognizance and thereafter taking
cognizance.
19. Said order was called in question before the
Jurisdictional Sessions Court and the Sessions Court in terms
of its impugned order dated 18.08.2026 has dismissed the
petition.
20. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the
provision of law, the judgments of the Apex Court referred to in
the order passed by the Trial Court.
21. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the
statements in the documents produced before the Court and

has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner laid much stress
on the expression in the estimation of others in Explanation-4
to Section 499 IPC or Section 356 (1) of BNS. Relevant portion
of Section 499 of IPC reads as under:-

3
( 1970) 1 SCC 590
4
(2020) 7 SCC 1

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


"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 excepted, 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.
Illustrations:
(a) A says “Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s
watch”, intending to cause it to be believed the Z

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it
falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z,
intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole
B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within
one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s
watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s
watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within
one of the exceptions.
Exception 1.xxxx
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Perusal of Explanation-4 reveals that the imputation

does not harm the reputation of a person if the imputation does
not lower the reputation of the person in the estimation of
others .
24. The petitioner’s contention is the expression “in the
estimation of others” would warrant the complainant to
examine the person in whose estimation the complainant’s
reputation is lowered. However, a plain reading of the said
Explanation does not necessarily mean that the expression “ in
the estimation of others” would only mean in the estimation of
the “ witnesses examined before the Court” .

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


25. The expression “in the estimation of others” though
refers to the persons in whose estimation the complainant's
reputation must be lowered, does not, by itself, warrant that
the particular person whose estimation is alleged to have been
affected must invariably be examined as a witness at the stage
of taking cognizance . The existence of the possible damage to
the reputation, depending on the nature of the imputation and
the material available, may be prima facie inferred from the
circumstances surrounding the publication and the contents of
the imputation itself.
26. However, in a given case to prove the contention
that the complainant’s reputation is lowered in the estimation
of others, the complainant may be required to examine the
person in whose estimation the complainant’s reputation is
lowered even at the stage of recording sworn statement.
27. If the witness who is examined before the Court, at
the stage of sworn statement, states that he has good opinion
of the complainant despite imputation, however, in the
estimation of others, the complainant’s reputation is lowered,
then it may suggest two possibilities. Such is the evidence in
this case.

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


(a) The witness might have seen and heard “ another
person” making a statement that because of the
imputation against the complainant, “a nother person”
does not hold the complainant in as high esteem as he
.
did before the imputation
(b) The witness might have heard about the opinion of
“another person”, on the complainant’s reputation being
lowered because of the imputation, through some other
person.
28. In scenario (a), the witness who personally heard
another person express an adverse opinion about the
complainant is competent to testify to the fact that such a
statement was made. The witness is a direct witness to the
making of that statement. However, the mere fact that another
person expressed such an opinion does not necessarily
establish that the imputation lowered the complainant's
reputation. If the making or significance of that statement is
disputed, further evidence may be necessary to establish the
alleged reputational harm.
In scenario (b) referred to above, the statement would be
hearsay.

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


29. The above view can be explained with two
illustrations.
(i) A tells B, that he heard C telling that D’s reputation
is lowered in C’s estimation, because of E’s
imputation on D.
(ii) A tells B, that he heard C telling about D’s
reputation is lowered, in F’s estimation, because
of E’s imputation on D.
30. In illustration (i), A has personally heard the
statement made by C that in C’s estimation D’s reputation is
lowered. Thus, A is a witness to C’s statement. The fact that C
made that statement about D’s reputation is admissible
evidence.
31. In illustration (ii) A has not personally heard F. A
has heard about the statement allegedly made by F, from C.
Thus the evidence of A about the alleged statement of F on D’s
reputation is hearsay.
32. In the present case the witnesses examined on
behalf of the complainant have stated that they have good
opinion about the complainant and the imputations are false,

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


however, because of the imputation, the reputation of the
complainant is lowered in the estimation of others.
33. It is true that the witnesses have not given specific
details of the other/s in whose estimation the complainant’s
reputation is lowered. Nevertheless if the witness has heard
somebody making a statement about another person’s
reputation being lowered, the fact that the person heard the
statement would be admissible but may not be conclusive proof
of the fact stated.
34. In such situation, if the imputations are per se
defamatory and lower 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, the Court can tentatively form an opinion that the
person’s reputation might have been lowered in the estimation
of others, for the purpose of taking cognizance or issuing the
process.
35. If the allegations or imputations are prima facie not
defamatory then the Court at the time of taking cognizance

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


may take a view that the materials are not sufficient to proceed
further and may insist on better materials or evidence.
36. For the aforementioned reasons the expression “in
the estimation of others” in Explanation-4 to Section 499 of
IPC or 356(1) of BNS cannot be construed as having mandated,
that in every case at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing
the process, that a witness other than the complainant must be
examined and said witness must state that in his own
estimation the complainant’s reputation is lowered.
37. If the complaint and the independent witness
examined state that the complainant’s reputation is lowered in
the estimation of others because of the imputation, and if the
imputation is of such a nature that the Court prima facie finds
that it is inherently capable of lowering the moral or intellectual
character of the complainant, or projects him as a person of
bad character or as having engaged in conduct generally
considered disgraceful, then the Court may without insisting on
the statement of the witness, that in his own estimation, the
complainant’s reputation is lowered, can take cognizance and
issue the process.

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


38. On the other hand, where the imputation is not
prima facie capable of lowering the complainant's reputation
within the meaning of Explanation-4 of Section 499 of IPC or
356(1) of BNS, mere assertion that the reputation of the
complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others may
not be sufficient. In such circumstances, to satisfy himself that
the essential ingredient of defamation is prima facie made out,
the Magistrate may require further material or the statement of
an independent witness who would say that in his own
estimation the complainant’s reputation is lowered.
39. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in John Thomas vs Dr. K.
5
Jagadeesan . Apex Court in the said case has held that in
case the statement is per se defamatory, it would relieve the
burden on the complainant that publication has lowered the
complainant’s reputation in the estimation of the right-thinking
public. The Apex Court also held that the accused cannot seek
discharge if the publication is not per se defamatory as the
complainant can lead evidence at the trial.

5
(2001) 6 SCC 30

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


40. The Court has noticed from the said judgment that
it is not clear whether the witnesses are examined before the
Court (at the time of recording sworn statement) to say that
the complainant’s reputation has been lowered in the
estimation of the person who is examined as a witness.
41. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Jaideep Bose vs Bid and
6
Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited . In the said case,
the Apex Court set aside the order taking cognizance on the
ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of
the Code is not followed as the accused were residing outside
the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance and against
some of the accused the order taking cognizance is set aside as
there were no materials to take a view that some of the
accused authored the publication. The Apex Court has also held
that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to
show that the reputation is lowered in the estimation of others.
42. In the instant case the contention relating to
Section 225 of BNSS is not raised as the Court which passed
the order is a Special Designated Court. Moreover accused

6
2025 SCC OnLine 348

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


being the member of the legislative assembly cannot take a
plea that he resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court in Bengaluru which issued the process. In addition the
Trial Court has issued pre cognizance notice to the
accused/petitioner and the petitioner/accused is heard.
43. That apart, the complainant has also examined
witnesses who have said that the complainant’s reputation is
lowered in the estimation of the public.
44. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied
on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Aveek Sarkar
7
and Another vs The State of West Bengal & Others.
45. In the said case, it appears that the FIR was
registered pursuant to a publication and there is a contention
that no private complaint is filed and the FIR was registered
based on complaint by an Association represented by the
Secretary. The Court held that such a complaint is not tenable
for the offences under Section 499 of IPC and the Court also
took a view that the publication was not defamatory in the said
case.

7
(2014) 4 SCC 257

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


46. Though the Court has held that there has to be an
evidence of an independent witness to the effect that in the
estimation of such independent witness the complainant’s
reputation is lowered, this Court is not persuaded to follow the
said view for the reasons already recorded supra.
47. The Madras High Court in S. Ranganathan vs
8
Radhakrishnan has held that before taking cognizance for an
offence under Section 499 IPC there has to be an inquiry under
Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Court is of the view that in the case
on hand apart from examination of the complainant, two
witnesses have been examined. Thus, there is no procedural
violation and the judgment in S. Ranganathan does not come
to the aid of the petitioner.
48. In the backdrop of above discussion, the Court has
to consider the statements made by the accused. The relevant
portion of the statements are as under:-
"
C°è EgÉÆÃ£É PÁmÁZÁgÀzÀ JAJ¯ïJ EzÁ£É. CªÀ ®Æn ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä
ºÉÆÃzÀ JA.J¯ï.J C°è.

8
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 2732

- 19 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


C°è mÉAqÀgï DUÀÄvÀÛªÉ PÀȵÁÚzÀ°è ¨sÀAiÀÄAPÀgÀ zÀÄqÀÄØ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ
CAvÀªÀgÀÄ J°è EgÀÄvÁÛgÉÆà C°è zsÀªÀÄð PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C°è E¸ÁèA
¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ DUÀÄvÉÛ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ »AzÀÆ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀ¤UÉ
CªÀgÀ¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖzÉÝ CAzÀgÉ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ CZÀqÁ EzÁ£É CªÀ£À CqÀØ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
¥Ánïï C®è. EzÀ£Àß ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉý CZÀqÁ CzÀÄ.
¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Áà ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀÆr ¤ªÀÄä CqÀغɸÀgÀÄ ZÉÃAeï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉÆgÀÄ
AiÀiÁPÀAzÉæ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV, ¥Ánïï CAzÀgÉ K£ÉÆà UËgÀªÀ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ
CAvÀ CAzÉÆÌÃAqÁ£É. CZÀqÁ & PÀA¥À¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¯ÉÆè§â ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀzÀªÀ
ಅಂದ ೆ
CzÀ£À®è CªÀ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖzÁÝ£É MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ E§âgÀÄ
ಾನಸೆಯ  ಾೕಾ ೕಕ ಕ ೆಂದ ಅಂ ೕಕೃತ ಆಗ .
PÉÆqÀ°.
£Á JgÀqÀÄ PÀqÉ ¤®èPÉÌ vÀAiÀiÁj¢Ý¤, ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀgÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À
±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀzÀ M¼ÀUÁV, ¤ÃªÀÅ E§âgÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¹àÃPÀgï PÉÆlÄÖ gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆlÄÖ
JgÀqÀÄ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁrj, zÀªÀiï EzÀÝgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀPÁëAvÀgÀ §jæà £Á£ÀÄ
§gÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß C¯Éèà ªÀÄtÄÚPÉÆlÄÖ §gÀÄwÛä. ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV
ªÀÄtÄÚPÉÆlÄÖ §wä ¤ÃªÉ¯Áè ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£ï KeÉAmï ¤£Éß £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ K£ÀÄ
ºÉÆÃgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj. M§â£Éà C°è EgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ vÁ¬ÄUÀAqÀ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ
¨sÁgÀvï ªÀiÁvÁQ eÉÊ CAzÀ. ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£ï ªÀÄÄzÁð¨Ázï CAzÀ C¯Éè®è
PÀÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ J¯Áè PÀÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁ¯Á¯ï PÉÆÃgï, ºÀgÁªÀiïPÉÆÃgï.
CªÁ EArà ±Á¸ÀPÀ 4-5 £ÀÆgÀÄ mÉA¥ÉÆà vÀAzÁ£À ¸Á§gÀ£Àß ©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ
EªÀgÉ®èjUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV §Ä¢Ý PÀ®Ä¹Ûë
£ÉÆÃqÁÛ¬Äj, £ÁªÀÅ »AzÀÆUÀ¼À MAzÀÄ Nl£ÀÄß £É£Éß K£ÀÄ ¸ÉÖÃeï ªÉÄïÉ
PÀÆvÁgÀ®è CªÀjUÉ ©¼À¯ÁgÀzÀAUÉ »AzÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ vÀAiÀiÁgÁV¢Ýë. ¤ÃªÀÅ
¸Á§gÀ£ÀÄß ¨É£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ®è ¸Á§gï ¨É£ï ºÀwÛ £É£Éß CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁèPïªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ
¸Á§Äæ. ¤ÃªÀÅ §gÀ°®è CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¸Áj ¤ªÀÄä£Àß £ÉÆÃqÀÌwÃªÉ CAvÀ £Á¼É
£ÀªÀÄä »AzÀÄ ¸À£ÁvÀ£À zsÀªÀÄðzÀ M§â£É M§â ªÀåQÛ F f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è K£ÁzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÉ
£ÁªÀÅ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÀ PÀgÉUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ §gÀ°®è CAzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¸Á§jUÉ
ºÀÄnÖ¢ÝÃj CAvÀ £ÁªÀÅ w¼ÀÄPÉƽÛë.
¤«Ää§âjUÉ zÀªÀiï vÁPÀvï, ¤ªÀÄä¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÁUÉ gÁfãÁªÉÄ
PÉÆr. F AiÀÄvÁß¼ï ¥ÀPÉëÃvÀgÀªÁV ¤AvÀÄ ¨sÀUÀªÁdAqÁ vÀUÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÁj¹©rä. .................
E£Àß £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä zÉñÀzÀ°è EzÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ CzÀÄ ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À AiÀÄÄzÀÝ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ DzÀgÉ E°ègÀĪÀAvÀ
CgÁªÀiïPÉÆÃgï CAvÀ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ ¥Ánïï, PÁµÀ¥ï£ÀßAvÀ AiÀıÀªÀAvÀgÁAiÀÄUËqÀgÀÄ
vÁ¬ÄUÀAqÀgÀÄ EzÁgÀ®è EªÀgÀÄ J¯Éè°è EvÁðgÀ EAvÀgÀ CgÁªÀiïPÉÆÃgï EzÉÝà EvÁðgÀ.
EªÀgÉ®ègÀ C¥Àà¤UÀÄnÖzÀgÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ZÁ¯ÉAeï PÉýzÁÝgÀ®è £ÁAiÉÄãï C¥ïà CAvÀ£À
PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀ®èªÀgÀÄ F gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀ®è. .......................

- 20 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


F CZÀqÁPÉÌ AiÀiÁPÀ ºÁPÁÛj CªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄUÀ ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀªÀ §wÃð¤ CAzÀªÁ ¨ÁgÀ¥Àà
ªÀÄUÀ£Éà ¤ªÀÄä¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀgÉ ¨Á, ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§âgÀ C¥Àà£Àß PÉýÛAiÀįÁè ªÀÄUÀ£Éà ¤£Àß ªÀiÁj £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ
UÀÄvÀÄð DPÉÛöÊvÉ AiÀiÁjUÉ ºÀÄnÖ C£ÉÆßÃzÀÄ. ¤£Àß §jà ªÀiÁj £ÉÆÃrzÉæ UÀÄvÁðPÉÛöÊvÉ.
¥ÀAZÀªÀĸÁ° ¸ÀªÀiÁdPÉÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr¢Ý, ¤Ã J¯Éè°è gÉÆPÁÌ vÀUÉÆAqï §¤ß. ¨ÉƪÀiÁä¬Ä
ªÀÄ£Éð JµÀÄÖ vÀUÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢, ¨ÉƪÀiÁä¬Ä ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ EzÁÝUÀ ¥ÁzÀAiÀiÁvÉæUÉ JµÀÄÖ gÉÆPÀÌ
vÀAzÀÄ wA¢Ã¤Ã£ÀÄ, ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§âgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÉÆÃqÉÆ £ÉÊwPÀvÉ ¤£ÀUÉ E®è. ¤ÃªÉǧâ
ªÀĺÁ ¨sÀæµÁÖ ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï E¢Ã. £À£Àß §UÉÎ E£ÉäÃ¯É ªÀiÁvÁr¢æ CzÉà ¨sÁµÉ, KPÁAzÀæ
©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁµÉ §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀĦÃjAiÀÄgï LwÃ. .......................

E£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ rPÉèöÊgï ªÀiÁrÛä EªÀj§âgÀÄ C¥Àà¤UÉ ºÀÄnÖ®è, D¬ÄvÁ ¤Ã
¥ÀAvÁªÀ¤UÉ .......................

TRANSCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT NO.4 VIDEO01.MP4 FROM
3:25 MINS TO 4:30 MINS
£ÉÃgÀªÁV ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼Éà dªÁ¨ÁÝj DUÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ CzÀ£À vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
CzÀ£À ¹©LUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ JPÀgÉ CAzÀæ ¸Á«gÁgÀÄ PÉÆÃn, MAzÀÄ
JPÀgÉ CAzÉæ D eÁUÀ EzÀÝ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ LzÀÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄzÀÄ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ EzÉ.
CzÀPÀ §AzsÀÄUÀ¼ÉÃ, J¯ÁègÀÄ £ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀQæ ªÀÄAwæ ¨Á¼ï zÉÆqïzÉÆqï ªÀiÁvï ºÉýÛzÀÝ CªÀÅß MAzÀÄ
zÉÆqÀØ ºÀUÀgÀt ªÀiÁqÁå£À, §vÉÃðw CªÀAzÀÄ, CªÀÅß ¨ÁUÀ¯ÉÆÌÃlzÁUÀ ºÉÆÃV.. K£ÉÆÃ
gÁdAiÉÆÃUÀ AiÀiÁªÉÇÝà AiÉÆÃUÀ CvÉíý ºÉÆqÉØ ºÉÆqÀØ.. UÀdPÉøÀj, C«æUÉ UÀdPÉøÀj DAiÀÄÄÛ..
AiÀiÁPÀAzÀæ ºÉAUÀAzÀæ £ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀÆgÉʪÀvÀÆÛ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä J¯Á ¸ÀQæ PÁSÁð£ÁåUÀ gÉÆPÀÌ
ºÉÆqÀØ. J¦JA¹ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ¸ÀÜgÀ PÀqÉ £ÀªÀiï ©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ J¦JA¹ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ¸ÀÜgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ gÉÆPÀÌ
ºÉÆqÉzÁ£À. CzÀ CAdvÁgÉÆà ªÁå¥ÀgÀ¸ÀÜgÀ ºÉüÁPÀ. K£ï £ÁªÉà ºÉÆÃV PÉÆmïÖ §A¢é j
C«ßV CvÉý. J¯Áè PÀqÉ J¦JA¹ PÀ¯ÉPÀë£Éßà PÀ¯ÉPÀë£ï ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï ºÉZÁÑUÉà ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁAUÉæ¸ï£À
ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÉãÀ CzÁgÀ¯Á CªÉæ¯Áè CPÀæªÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ£ÁUÀ vÉÆqÀV©mÁÖgÀ £ÉÆÃræà EªÀvÀÄÛ ªÁ°äÃQ
K£ï ¤UÀªÀÄzÀÄÝ M£ÀÆßgÀ JA¨sÀvÉüÀÄ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥ÁAiÀiï J¹Ö d£ÁAUÀzÀ C©üªÀÈ¢ÝUÁV J¹Ö
d£ÁAUÀzÀ C©üªÀÈ¢ÝUÁV EgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ £ÀªÀiï f¯Áè. "………
49. On perusal of the statement, there is no difficulty in
taking a prima facie view that the statements cast serious
aspersions on the complainant's integrity and character and are
inherently capable of lowering the reputation of the
complainant. Of course even if the allegations are true, whether
the case falls under an exception can be considered by the
Court. On the basis of the said publication and the statements
of two witnesses, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence

- 21 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


under Section 499 of IPC. Said impugned order cannot be said
to be erroneous. Because at this stage the Court need not
consider whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the
accused.
50. Whether the public or any person believed the
imputation to be true or whether the complainant’s reputation
was in fact lowered in the estimation of others, are the
questions to be considered at the time of trial.
51. At this juncture, the Court does not find any error in
the order passed by the Trial Court or the Revisional Court in
taking a view that a case is made out to proceed further for the
offence under Section 499 of IPC.
52. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manoj Kumar
9
Tiwari Vs Manish Sisodia & Ors. , and the judgments of the
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Jayappa Vs
10
Shamegowda , S.P.Bobati & Ors. Vs Mahadev
11
Virupaxappa Latti and Sri M Krishna Reddy Vs N R

9
2002 Livelaw (SC) 853
10
1983 SCC On Line Kar.6
11
2004 SCC On Line Kar.511

- 22 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


12
Ramesh to urge that the petition has to be allowed following
the ratio laid down in the said cases, the Court is of the view
that in the aforementioned cases the accused were either
acquitted or the complaint is quashed based on the nature of
the imputations made against the complainant in those cases.
The imputations in the present case against the complainant
are way different from the cases referred to above. It is not
necessary to refer to the imputations made in those cases.
Hence, the said judgments have no application to the case on
hand.
CONCLUSIONS.
(i) At the time of taking cognizance for an offence and
issuing process, in a case alleging defamation,
Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC, or Section
356(1) of BNS, does not necessarily mandate the
complainant to examine a witness other than the
complainant to make a statement that the
complainant’s reputation is lowered in the
estimation of “said witness”.

12
Criminal Petition No.3549/2024

- 23 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


(ii) Whether such statement of a witness other than the
complainant at the time of taking cognizance is
required or not, is dependent on nature of
imputation and other materials and attendant
circumstances.

(iii) If the imputation is of such a nature that the Court
prima facie finds that it is inherently capable of
lowering the moral or intellectual character of the
complainant, or projects him as a person of bad
character or as having engaged in conduct generally
considered disgraceful, then the Court may without
insisting on a statement from a witness that, in his
own estimation, the complainant’s reputation is
lowered, may take cognizance and issue the process
based on the statements of the complainant and the
witness who state that the complainant’s reputation
is lowered in the estimation of others.
(iv) Where the imputation is not prima facie capable of
lowering the complainant's reputation within the
meaning of Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or
Section 356(1) of BNS, a mere assertion by the

- 24 -
CRL.P No. 12886 of 2026


complainant and his witness that the reputation of
the complainant has been lowered in the estimation
of others may not be sufficient. In such
circumstances, the Magistrate to satisfy himself that
the essential ingredient of defamation is prima facie
made out, may require further material or the
statement of a witness other than the complainant
who would say that in his own estimation the
complainant’s reputation is lowered.
53. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is dismissed.
(ii) The Observations made in this order are not the
opinion on the merits of the complaint and defence
of the accused.
(iii) All contentions on merits are kept open to be
adjudicated by the Trial Court.

Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE


CHS/BRN