Case at a Glance
Two brothers published a public notice in newspapers warning people not to deal with a woman who was litigating against them over family property, alleging she had created false documents. She filed a private complaint of defamation and mischief, and the Magistrate sent it to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, after which a chargesheet was filed and cognizance taken. Justice H.P. Sandesh held that a defamation complaint cannot be referred to the police for investigation; the Magistrate must examine the complaint and record a sworn statement under Section 200 CrPC. The referral and cognizance were quashed and the case sent back to the stage of registering the complaint.
The complainant had sued the petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2) for declaration and possession; the suit was dismissed on 24 June 2017 and her appeal was pending before the District Court at Tumakuru. A separate partition suit by her and her sisters, claiming a one-fifth share, had been partly decreed and was also in appeal. On 17 January 2018, the petitioners allegedly published a notice in the newspapers Praja Pragathi and Vijayavani stating that she had created false documents, cheated officials and was trying to alienate the properties, and warning the public not to deal with her.
She filed a private complaint under Sections 426, 427 and 500 read with Section 34 IPC against the two brothers and two others who allegedly helped circulate the notice. The Magistrate at Sira referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The police registered a crime, filed a chargesheet, and the court took cognizance in C.C. No. 449 of 2019. The brothers approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the Magistrate had no power to send a defamation complaint to the police and that the police had no role in investigating defamation.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Magistrate refer a private complaint of defamation to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and can cognizance be taken on the resulting police report?
Why Defamation Must Follow the Complaint Route
Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the Magistrate had committed a basic procedural error. Referring to Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India ((2016) 7 SCC 221), as applied by the Karnataka High Court in an earlier criminal petition, and to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Suresh v. Sub-Inspector of Police ((2019) 4 KLT 106) on Section 199 CrPC, the Court said: “In a case of defamation, there cannot be any referring the matter to the police for investigation.” It found “a fundamental error on the part of the Magistrate in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.”
The correct course, the Court explained, was for the Magistrate to examine the contents of the complaint, take cognizance and record the complainant’s sworn statement under Section 200 CrPC before deciding whether to issue process. The Court also noted that the police had not properly considered the offences alleged and that the trial court, while taking cognizance on the police report under Section 190(1)(b), did not even record a prima facie finding. Allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to a miscarriage of justice, making it a fit case for Section 482 CrPC.
What the Court Actually Held
- A private complaint of defamation cannot be referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; doing so is a fundamental error.
- The Magistrate should examine the complaint, take cognizance and record the complainant’s sworn statement under Section 200 CrPC before issuing process.
- Cognizance taken on a police report without any prima facie finding, in a case that should not have gone to the police at all, cannot stand.
- The Section 156(3) referral order and the cognizance in C.C. No. 449 of 2019 were quashed, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed from the stage of registering the complaint in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Defamation complaints over newspaper notices and social-media posts are common in property and family disputes; this clarifies the procedure from the very first step.
- It protects accused persons from police investigation and arrest-related consequences in a case the law requires to proceed as a complaint case.
- The complainant does not lose her case: the matter goes back to the Magistrate to proceed afresh under the correct procedure.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants
- File a private complaint and be ready to give a sworn statement under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 BNSS); do not seek a police probe for defamation.
- Keep the original publication (newspaper copy, post, screenshot) and evidence of circulation to support the complaint.
For Counsel
- A Section 156(3) referral in a defamation case is a jurisdictional defect that can be challenged even after chargesheet and cognizance.
- Cite Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Suresh v. Sub-Inspector of Police for the requirement that defamation proceed on complaint by the person aggrieved.
Key Takeaways
- Defamation is prosecuted on a complaint before the Magistrate, not through a police investigation.
- A Section 156(3) referral in a defamation case is liable to be quashed.
- Cognizance on a police report without a prima facie finding is also vulnerable.
- Quashing on procedural grounds sends the case back; it does not end the complaint.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can police investigate a defamation complaint?
According to this Karnataka High Court ruling, a Magistrate cannot refer a private defamation complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate must record the complainant’s sworn statement and proceed as a complaint case.
What happened to the complaint here?
The referral and cognizance were quashed, but the Magistrate was directed to proceed from the stage of registering the complaint, so the complainant can still pursue it in accordance with law.
What was the alleged defamation?
A notice published in two newspapers on 17 January 2018 alleging that the complainant had created false documents and cheated officials, and asking the public not to deal with her over disputed family properties.
Conclusion
S.D. Vijaya Kumar is a procedural ruling with real practical bite: in defamation, the complaint route under Section 200 CrPC is the only route, and a detour through the police station taints everything that follows.
Practical takeaway: If a defamation case against your client began with a Section 156(3) referral, examine whether the referral and cognizance can be challenged at the threshold.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com