Defamation Complaint Can't Be Referred To Police For Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot refer a private complaint alleging defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Consequently, Justice H.P. Sandesh quashed the Trial Court's order that referred the defamation case to police for probe and subsequently took cognizance based on the investigation report.

The High Court said that the Magistrate committed a “fundamental error” by referring a defamation complaint— a non-cognizable offence—to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, instead of examining the complaint and recording the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 Of the CrPC.

“When the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate should have seen the contents of the complaint and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the same can be considered, ought to have taken the cognizance and proceeded to record the sworn statement and the same has not been done, as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,” the Court said.

It added, “In a case of defamation, there cannot be any referring the matter to the police for investigation and there was a foundational defect in passing such an order.”

Justice Sandesh further noted that the Trial Court failed to examine whether the contents of the charge-sheet showed a prima facie case against the accused-petitioners.

“The Trial Judge while taking the cognizance fails to take note of the charge-sheet material, except making the reference that perused the charge-sheet and proceeded to issue the process by taking the cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court even did not make any observation that charge-sheet material discloses that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition seeking to quash the charge sheet filed for offences punishable under Sections 426, 427, and 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case afresh from the stage of registration of the private complaint.

Background

The matter arose out of a private complaint filed by respondent B.R. Rajeswari against petitioners S.D. Vijaya Kumar and S.D. Mohan Kumar. The complainant submitted while a civil litigation was pending between the parties concerning certain suit properties, the petitioners published public notices in newspapers (Praja Pragathi and Vijayavani) on January 17, 2018, alleging that the complainant had indulged in creating false and bogus property documents and cheated officials. The notice warned the public against entering into transactions with her.

Claiming that the newspaper notice severely damaged her reputation and character, the complainant filed a private complaint seeking action under Sections 426 (mischief), 427 (mischief causing damage), and 500 (defamation) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court referred the complaint to police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The police investigated the matter, submitted a charge-sheet, and the Magistrate subsequently took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC against the petitioners. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court.