The Karnataka High Court in the case Public TV (Kannada News Channel) and Anr v Bannadi Somanath Hegde observed and has quashed the defamation proceedings against a Kannada news channel, a Public TV, and Chief Patron of the channel, HR Ranganath initiated. A private complaint is filled alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate’s fraternity at large. While allowing the petition, the single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed and stated that in the present case the allegations raised are that the petitioner has spoken ill about the advocate’s fraternity and the words complained of is not against the complainant in his individual capacity. However, as enumerated under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973., the complainant is not an aggrieved person so as a complaint can be maintained for the offence punishable under Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A private complaint was filled by Advocate Bannadi Somanath under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC), against the petitioners and other accused alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate’s fraternity at large. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the petitionersaccused among other accused. The counsel, Senior Advocate M.S.Shyam appearing for the petitioner submitted that as defined under Section 499 of IPC, the complainant is not an aggrieved person so as a complaint can be maintained for the offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court Findings: The bench observed that the allegation raised by the complainant is that sections of Media have spoken ill about the advocate’s fraternity which amounts to defamation under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Further, the bench referred the Apex Court judgement in the case S Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. The bench in its order stated complainant is not an aggrieved person as enumerated under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., so as to maintain the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. Accordingly, the bench allowed the quashing petitio
