The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case of defamation against Congress leader and State minister Satish Jarkiholi, who was accused of defaming Hindus..Justice M Nagaprasanna set aside an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of a private complaint against Jarkiholi.Dilip Kumar, a lawyer based in Bengaluru, had accused Jarkiholi of hurting the sentiments of Hindu community by stating that the word “Hindu” was Persian and has a dirty meaning..The Court said that "a definite class of people" was not defamed in the case for it to fall under Explanation-2 to Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Relying on Supreme Court's ruling in Narasimhan vs TV Chokkappa that defamation cannot occur against an indeterminate group, the single-judge said,“This is a case where not a definite class of people is alleged to be defamed, but an indefinite class. The very concept of defaming an indefinite class cannot lead to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as the purport of Section 499 and the Explanation-II is that it should be against a definite class of people.".Besides accusing Jarkiholi of defaming Hindus, the complainant also had claimed that his statement resulted into protests at various places.Accordingly, Section 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) of IPC had been invoked against Jarkiholi.However, the Court said the offence was not made out in the present case."Section 153 mandates that an accused who wantonly gives provocating statement with intent to cause riot, as it is immaterial whether rioting is committed or not committed. The statement of the petitioner nowhere would meet the ingredients of Section 153.".In conclusion, the Court said the alleged offences were not met even to their prima facie sense. "Permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice," it added while quashing the proceedings against Jarkiholi..Advocate BS Sreenivas appeared for Jarkiholi.Advocate Dharampal appeared for the complainant..[Read Judgment]
