Giving Notice To Tenant To Vacate Lease Premises Not Defamation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Senior Advocate Practising At SC

The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings against a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and his wife, over a complaint filed by their tenant after they sent a notice asking him to vacate their property.

Noting that defamation requires an intention to harm the reputation of a person, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that initiating legal proceedings against a party would not constitute defamation merely because the proceedings ended in favour of that party.

The Court stated “What would unmistakably emerge is, that dragging the complainant into litigation or the complainant dragging the petitioners into litigation on several grievances, grounds or allegations would constitute legal proceedings between the two, which would not and cannot be said to be defamatory, merely because the case has gone in favour of the complainant. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if it was a case of malicious prosecution. While defamation, has some hues of malicious prosecution, substantially it is not.”

The brief facts of the case are that in 1994, Padma Malini (petitioner no. 1), owner of a property in Bangalore, leased part of the property in favour of a company. In 1999, G Venkatesh (petitioner no. 2) sent a legal notice to one of the Directors of the company (respondent) asking the company to vacate the premises as the lease expired in 1998. The notice also stated that a raid conducted by Customs Income Tax on the property was prompted by illegal activities of the company. 

The respondent then filed a suit against eviction and an interim injunction was passed in his favour. However, in 2013, 14 years after the legal notice was sent, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging defamation. The statement of the respondent in recorded in 2023, after over 10 years of registration of the complainant and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in 2024.  

The petitioner thus approached the High Court seeking to quash the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing of summons to them under Section 500 of IPC. The petitioners contended that the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC is punishable to a maximum of 3 years imprisonment and therefore, the complaint is hit by Section 468 of the Cr.P.C (bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation). They thus argued that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence.

Additionally, the petitioner also contended that the complaint was hit by the 4th exception to Section 499 of the IPC, which providesthat the publication of reports of proceedings of Courts do not constitute defamation, if they are substantially true. They submitted that as the legal notice was never put to circulation in the public, it notice could not be termed to be defamatory. 

On the other hand, the respondent argued that several proceedings against the Company or respondent have ended in its/his favour and thus the petitioners defamed the image of the Company and the complainant in the eyes of the general public. The respondent further argued that the cause of action was a continuing one in the case as the complaint had to be registered after the closure of the proceedings between the parties. 

Pursuing the material on record, the Court noted that the Magistrate took cognisance of the complaint considering various disputes between the petitioners and the company and respondent. 

The Court observed that to constitute defamation, there must be an intention of harming or knowing that a statement will harm the reputation of a person about whom it is made. It further noted that it would be no imputation that would harm a person if the alleged defamatory statements are not published.

Referring to the legal notice, the Court noted that the property was searched by the authorities on account of certain allegations against the respondent or company in which the complainant and thus these facts in the legal notice cannot be construed as defamatory. 

"This by no stretch can be said to be defamatory, as they were facts poured into the notice, so caused and the notice was not published anywhere, it was a communication between the 2nd petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, there is no fact that had not happened narrated in the complaint, nor the complaint was published to bring down disrepute to the complainant, in the eyes of general public. Therefore, the offence of defamation cannot be laid against the petitioner." 

On the Magistarte's order taking cognisance of the complaint, the Court remarked that "The act of the Magistrate appears to be that he would wait till the complainant comes and records his sworn statement, as the Court has waited for 10 long years to record a sworn statement and issue process in a seemingly frivolous case registered against the petitioners. The order of taking cognizance and issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC is rendered unsustainable and the unsustainability would lead to its obliteration.”

The Court thus set aside the Magistrae's rider taking cognizance of the respondent's complaint. 

The petitioners had also approached the court seeking to quash a case registered in the year 2010, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC by the company to whom the premise was leased. It was alleged that the 1st petitioner (Rao) along with 6 goondas had come into the premises and assaulted the office boy and trespassed into the leased premises.

The Court noted that police, after investigation, had filed a 'B' report. It noted that the Magistrate waited for the complainant to file a protest petition, which was done after 18 months. It noted that later the complaint was terminated which came to be restored by the Sessions Court in a criminal revision petition. After 2 years the complainant recorded his sworn statement. The Magistrate then took 6 years to record the further sworn statement which happened on 07-10-2023 and then passes an order taking cognizance. It obsrbed, “A perusal at the order on 'B' report quoted supra does not inspire even a semblance of confidence, as the order neither rejects the 'B' report nor accepts the 'B' report, but takes cognizance and issues process.”

Following which it held “Therefore, without going into the fact whether the complaint, the sworn statement or the order of taking cognizance meeting the ingredients of the offence, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to redo the process of considering the protest petition, to pass an order on the 'B' report and protest petition.”

In this matter, the Court remitted the matter back to Magistare for fresh consideration.

Appearance: Senior Counsel Prabhuling Navadgi, Advocates Vidyashree K.S and Prateek Chandramouli for petitioners. 

Advocate S Subrahmanya for Respondent.

Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha for R1.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 108

Case Title: PADMA MALINI G. RAO & ANR AND RAVI KARUMBAIAH

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4250 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order