Court rules that defamation cases must proceed through private complaints, not police investigations as directed by Magistrates.
In a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the police investigation in a defamation case involving Prof. Niranjana, former Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru North University. Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that criminal defamation cases, specifically under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be subject to police investigations initiated by Magistrate's orders. Instead, such cases must be pursued through private complaints.
The case originated from allegations made by Prof. Niranjana that led to the termination of a part-time lecturer, which were subsequently challenged and overturned by the Court. Following this, the lecturer filed a private complaint alleging defamation, leading to a Special Court referral for police investigation.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted significant procedural errors, emphasizing that defamation is a non-cognizable offense and thus outside the purview of police investigations initiated by Magistrates under Section 223 of BNSS. The Court reiterated that cognizance should only be taken upon private complaints filed by the aggrieved party, ensuring the accused an opportunity to be heard before any legal proceedings commence.
The judgment also criticized the lack of adherence to mandatory procedural requirements under the BNSS. The Court underscored the necessity for Magistrates to issue notices to accused individuals and hear their statements before taking cognizance of offenses, a requirement overlooked in this case.
This ruling aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, reinforcing the principle that criminal defamation cases require careful judicial determination and should not be subjected to police investigation as a matter of course. The Court's decision to quash the police investigation and remit the case back to the Magistrate for proper procedure underscores the importance of adhering to statutory mandates and judicial precedents.
The judgment serves as a critical reminder of the procedural safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the judicial process and ensure fair treatment of accused individuals in defamation cases.
Bottom Line:
Criminal defamation cases under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 500 IPC) cannot be investigated by police based on Magistrate's direction under Section 223 of BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) CrPC). Cognizance for such offences must be taken only upon a private complaint filed by the aggrieved person, and the accused must be given an opportunity of being heard before cognizance is taken.
Statutory provision(s): Section 356(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 223 of BNSS, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 500 of IPC (formerly), CrPC Sections 200, 199, 156(3).
Prof. Niranjana v. State, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2848369
