High Court of Karnataka Quashes Defamation Proceedings Against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Private Complaint — Lack of Specific Allegations and Vicarious Liability Not Attracted. Criminal proceedings under Sections 499, 500 read with 34 and 120-B IPC quashed as complaint did not disclose any specific role of petitioners in publication of alleged defamatory material.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 12:51:22

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C.No.76/2020 pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. The private complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant alleging offences under Sections 499, 500 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that accused No.1 had written a complaint dated 23.01.2015 regarding sexual harassment at the workplace, addressed to the Director General of Doordarshan, and the same was forwarded to the Prime Minister of India, Minister of I&B, and State Minister I&B. The petitioners, who were employees of Doordarshan and All India Radio, were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4. The legal issue before the court was whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed in the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not attribute any specific role to them and that they were sought to be made vicariously liable without any overt act. The respondent contended that the petitioners were part of a conspiracy. The court analyzed the complaint and found that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners regarding the publication of the alleged defamatory material or any conspiracy. The court held that in criminal law, vicarious liability is not attracted and that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 499, 500 IPC read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC - The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 4, sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020 for offences of defamation. The complaint alleged that accused No.1 wrote a complaint of sexual harassment which was forwarded to various authorities, but there were no specific allegations against petitioners regarding publication or conspiracy. Held that in the absence of specific allegations, criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against them as vicarious liability is not attracted in criminal law. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Complaint - The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where the complaint did not disclose any specific role of the petitioners and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings for defamation against accused Nos. 3 and 4 can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the complaint lacks specific allegations against them and they are sought to be made vicariously liable without any overt act.

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, against the petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 4) are quashed.

Law Points

Defamation
Vicarious liability
Quashing of criminal proceedings
Section 482 CrPC
Sections 499
500 IPC
Section 34 IPC
Section 120-B IPC
Private complaint
Specific allegations

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 92

Criminal Petition No.100812 of 2024

2024-07-26

H.P. Sandesh

Sri Hitesh Gowda B.J. for Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki (for petitioners), Sri Suyog Herele for Sri Sanjay S. Katageri (for respondent)

S. Nagarajan and B. Ashoka

Nadoja Dr. Mahesh Joshi IB(P)S

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of defamation proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 4) sought quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020.

Filing Reason

The complaint lacked specific allegations against the petitioners and sought to make them vicariously liable without any overt act.

Issues

Whether the criminal proceedings for defamation against accused Nos. 3 and 4 can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the complaint lacks specific allegations against them and they are sought to be made vicariously liable without any overt act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the complaint does not attribute any specific role to them and they are sought to be made vicariously liable without any overt act. Respondent argued that the petitioners were part of a conspiracy and the proceedings should continue.

Ratio Decidendi

In criminal law, vicarious liability is not attracted. In the absence of specific allegations against the accused, the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hangal for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent-complainant by filing a private complaint is that accused No.1 had written a complaint dated 23.01.2015 of sexual harassment at work place of Director General, Dooradarshan and the same was forwarded to Prime Minister of India, Minister I & B, State Minister I & B.

Procedural History

The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint leading to C.C.No.76/2020 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, for offences under Sections 499, 500 read with 34 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 4, filed Criminal Petition No.100812 of 2024 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. The petition was heard and reserved for orders on 24.07.2024, and the order was pronounced on 26.07.2024.