Karnataka High Court Upholds Defamation Case, Dismisses Compromise Appeal by Doordarshan Employees

Last Updated on August 7, 2024 by News Desk

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a defamation case against a co-accused cannot be dismissed due to a compromise entered between the main accused and the complainant. The court must take note of the allegations made against each of the accused while deciding the plea.

A single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held this ruling while dismissing the petition filed by S Nagarajan and another accused, who were employees of Doordarshan and charged under sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.The court stated that there cannot be a criminal prosecution against the petitioners due to the compromise between the main accused and the complainant.

The court must take note of the allegation made against each of the accused and when prima facie materials are found against them to take cognizance and the court has issued the process, the question of interference by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise.

A private complaint was registered by complainant Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi claiming that a false sexual harassment at workplace complaint was registered against him by the accused with the employer Doordarshan and the police. The complaint was also forwarded to various officials with an intention to spoil his image. The internal committee on enquiry discharged the complaint

The accused contended that the accused and Joshi had compromised the matter between themselves, and the court allowed Joshi to withdraw the complaint filed against the accused No.1. They argued that the statements made by them as witnesses did not amount to defamation.The court found that the act of accused No.3 was sufficient to hold that he knew the allegations of sexual harassment were false but proceeded to defame the complainant, leading to prima facie material against him.

In respect of accused No.4, there was material on record showing that the complainant had taken action against the accused No.4 when he was Director of Dooradarshana, Bangalore.

The court concluded that when such materials are placed on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the power of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the case against the petitioners.