Karnataka HC Says Advocates Must Withdraw Defamation Complaint While Forgery Allegation Against Them Is Tested In Criminal Case

The petitioners filed a private complaint alleging that the respondent had defamed them under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code by accusing them of forgery in a separate complaint

The Magistrate directed a police investigation rather than recording the petitioners’ sworn statements and taking cognizance; the revisional court did not interfere

The respondent’s forgery complaint had been investigated, and a forensic report stated that the disputed signature was forged. Proceedings arising from that complaint were pending before the High Court, with a stay operating against petitioner No. 2 but not petitioner No. 1

The petitioners sought to set aside the Magistrate’s and revisional court’s orders

Sections 499 and 500 IPC were the provisions invoked in the petitioners’ defamation complaint

The petitioners also relied on Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing that the Magistrate’s direction for police investigation was impermissible; this was presented as a submission, rather than a legal ground expressly determined by the Court

The Court’s decision rested on the case-specific principle that, where the allegation underlying a defamation complaint is the subject of pending criminal proceedings and a forensic report prima facie supports that allegation, a defamation complaint alleging that the accusation was false is premature until the allegation is tested

The petition was brought under Section 482 CrPC (also described in the petition as filed under Section 528 BNSS)

The Court noted that the forensic report stated that the disputed signature was forged and that the related criminal proceedings remained pending

Because the truth or falsity of the forgery allegation had yet to be determined in those proceedings, the Court considered it premature to treat the respondent’s act of lodging the complaint as an act aimed at harming the petitioners’ reputations. It therefore held that the petitioners could not maintain the defamation complaint at that stage

The Court did not separately determine the petitioners’ argument under Section 199 CrPC.

It directed the complainant to withdraw the defamation complaint before the trial court, while preserving liberty to file a complaint as available in law at an appropriate stage