Karnataka HC Quashes Defamation Case, Emphasizes Pending Matters Immune to Party Comments

The High Court of Karnataka has asserted that determining the truth or defamatory nature of a statement must occur only after the suit’s disposal, stating that pending matters are shielded from comments made by the involved parties. The judgment draws upon the dictum in a Supreme Court verdict (State of Bihar Vs Kripalu Shankar) and has quashed a criminal case alleging defamation arising from a statement made in the pleadings of a case.

Kallavva filed a complaint against Yallappa and Manoj Kumar, accusing them of making defamatory statements in a court proceeding. The two individuals sought the High Court’s intervention to quash the criminal case.

Kallavva and her sisters had initiated a suit to cancel a sale deed for 23 acres of land executed by their father, Huchappa Lakkannavar, in favor of Manoj Kumar in 2016. Kallavva claimed that in the written statement and evidence affidavit, Manoj Kumar and Yallappa “made defamatory imputations making out a clear offense punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.” The complaint was filed against them based on these statements.

The High Court, in allowing the petition and quashing the pending criminal case, emphasized that the averments in the pleadings filed before the judicial forum do not fall under the purview of Section 499 IPC, as the proceedings are still pending and sub judice. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated, “No prima facie case has been made out.” The petitioners argued that the statements in the property dispute were made in good faith.

“The petitioners have made these averments that are very relevant for the issues, which according to them have been stated with due care and attention. Whether these averments made by the petitioners in the written statement are statements of truth or not is going to be decided by the Civil Court because there is a relevant issue on the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Huchchappa. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners have made the above averments without due care and attention,” the High Court affirmed.