Defamation Case Against Co-Accused Cannot Be Dismissed Due to Settlement Between Main Accused and Complainant: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a defamation case against a co-accused cannot be dismissed solely because of a compromise between the main accused and the complainant. The court must consider the allegations made against each individual accused when deciding the plea.

Justice H.P. Sandesh of the single judge bench made this ruling while dismissing a petition filed by S. Nagarajan and another accused, both employees of Doordarshan, who were charged under Sections 499 and 500, along with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

It said, “In view of compromise between accused No.1 and the complainant, there cannot be a criminal prosecution against the petitioners and the said contention cannot be accepted. The Court has to take note of the allegation made against each of the accused and when prima facie materials are found against the petitioners to take cognizance and court has issued the process, the question of interference by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise.”

Dr. Mahesh Joshi filed a private complaint claiming that the accused had made a false sexual harassment complaint against him with Doordarshan and the police.

The complaint was also sent to high-profile officials, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, and the Chairpersons of Prasar Bharati and the National Commission for Women, aiming to damage his reputation. The internal committee that investigated the matter found no grounds for the complaint.

It was also alleged that the accused worked with Accused No. 1 (the woman who made the sexual harassment complaint) to share the complaint with the media, leading to its publication in newspapers. They were said to have supported Accused No. 1 by giving false statements as witnesses during the investigation.

The accused argued that Accused No. 1 and Joshi had settled the issue between themselves, and the court allowed Joshi to withdraw the complaint against Accused No. 1.

They argued that since the complaint against Accused No. 1 was withdrawn, there was no reason to continue the case against them as Accused Nos. 3 and 4. They claimed that there was no basis for conspiracy charges and that continuing the case would misuse the legal process.

They also said that their statements, made as witnesses during the investigation, were not defamatory.

The complainant disagreed, saying that a previous petition from the accused was dismissed, and the Magistrate was instructed to follow legal procedures under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and move forward with the case.

The complainant also mentioned the magistrate’s earlier decision to accept the complaint and issue a process against the accused.

Findings

The court referred to the Magistrate’s order, which found that Accused No. 3 knew the sexual harassment claims were false but still tried to defame the complainant, showing there was initial evidence against him.

For Accused No. 4, the court noted that he had sent emails to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and other officials about the sexual harassment allegations.

“There is material on record to show that the complainant (Joshi) has taken action against the accused No.4 when he was Director of Dooradarshana, Bangalore. Just to take revenge, the accused No.4 has made false allegations against the complainant (joshi) and sent mails to higher authorities. Hence, prima facie material against accused No.4 to that effect is that without there being any reason, made false and baseless allegation against the complainant,” it was held.

Following this the court said that when such materials are placed on record, it was not a fit case to exercise the power of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the case against the petitioners.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

• Appearance: Advocate Hitesh Gowda B.J for Shivaraj C Bellakki for Petitioners.
• Advocate Suyog Herele for Advocate Sanjay Katageri for Respondent.
• Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
• Case Title: S Nagarajan & ANR AND Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi
• Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100812 OF 202