- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17

TH

DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14473 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1.RAHUL GANDHI

S/O LATE RAJIV GANDHI

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

R/AT: C/O SONIA GANDHI, 10

JANPATH, NEW DELHI

G.P.O., NEW DELHI

DELHI - 110 001.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE A/W

MS. ANISHKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE AND

SRI HARSHA G.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY

NO.48, JAGANNATHA BHAVANA

TEMPLE STREET

11

TH

CROSS, MALLESHWARAM

BANGALORE - 560 003

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY

BJP KARNATAKA

S KESHAVA PRASAD

S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAHSETTY

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C. C.

NO.7399/2024 (P.C.R. 3878/2023), FOR THE ALLEGED

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 499 AND 500 OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII AD DL.

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT

FOR TRAIL OF CASES FILED AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS

FORMER MP/MLA'S, TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED ON 18.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

C.A.V. ORDER

PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

The petitioner who is accused No.4 has filed the

present petition seeking for setting aside of the

proceedings pending in C.C.No.7399/2024 (P.C.R.No.

3878/2023) for the alleged offences punishable unde r

Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, pending on

the file of XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistra te,

Bengaluru.

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

2. The parties are referred to by their description

in the proceedings before the trial Court.

3. The complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of

Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the complainant viz., Bharatiya

Janata Party, represented by its State Secretary,

S. Keshava Prasad.

4. The complaint narrates that the accused No.1

i.e., the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee whic h is

a part of Indian National Congress, the accused No.2 - the

President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committ ee,

accused No.3 - the leader of Opposition i.e., of th e

Congress Party (at the relevant point of time) and accused

No.4 - the Former Vice President of Indian National

Congress, had conspired and issued an advertisement on

05.05.2023 by making reckless imputations against t he

complainant. The advertisement, it is alleged was

defamatory and published in main stream newspapers.

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

5. It is submitted that the allegations made in the

advertisement made a clear reference to the time pe riod

of 2019 to 2023 which would indicate that the refer ence

made in the advertisement was against the complaina nt.

The complaint further narrates that the insinuations made

in the said advertisement have tarnished the image of the

complainant's Government.

6. It is further asserted that the accused No.4 who

was actively campaigning for the Congress Party had put

up the advertisement in his Twitter account, which would

reveal that the advertisement related to the complainant.

It is asserted that the accused No.4 has issued directions

to accused Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed to advertise and such

publication has defamed the complainant.

7. It is submitted that legal notice came to be

issued calling upon the accused to withdraw the

allegations. In light of absence of response, complaint has

been filed.

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

8. It is noticed from the records produced that

upon presentation of the complaint, cognizance was taken

on 13.06.2023 and case was posted for sworn stateme nt

of complainant on 27.07.2023. The order sheet would

indicate that sworn statement of the complainant wa s

recorded and Exs. C1 to C14 were marked. Subsequent ly,

C.W.2 to C.W.5 were examined. The Court heard

arguments before issuing process to the accused on

23.02.2024. A detailed order came to be passed on

23.02.2024 while issuing summons.

9. The trial Court has taken note of the sworn

statement, copy of authorisation, the documents mar ked

as Exs.C1 to C14 and found that prima facie version of the

complainant was supported. The Court also took note of

statements of C.W.2 and C.W.5. The trial Court has held

that the complainant could be construed to be a 'person'.

It records that there were sufficient grounds for issuance

of notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and accordin gly,

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

order is passed to register criminal case for the offence

under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and summons has

been issued to accused 1 to 4.

10. The accused No.4 has then approached this

Court seeking for setting aside of the proceedings.

11. The petitioner has contended that:

advertisement relied on by the complainant does not

contain any imputation against the complainant or a ny

other identifiable individual; that the publication contains

no material linking such advertisement to accused N o.4;

that the complaint is based on tweet of accused No. 4

which has not been marked or exhibited before the t rial

Court; that the case rests on subjective inferences and

perceptions of the complaint and not based on any

objective material; that there is no evidence that accused

no. 4 "gave instructions" to carry out the publication; that

complaint ought to have been filed by the Governmen t of

Karnataka in accordance with Section 199(2) and 199 (4)

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

of Cr.P.C. and the present complainant lacks locus standi

to prosecute the complaint of defamation; that the tweet

referred has neither been marked nor supported by 6 5B

certificate (Indian Evidence Act) and cannot be loo ked

into; that the order issuing process lacks application of

mind; that the complainant is not the aggrieved per son;

that accused No.4 possessed no position of authorit y at

the relevant point of time and that there could be no

vicarious liability fastened on accused No.4 in the absence

of specific allegation.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent -

complainant would submit that: the Magistrate has rightly

recorded a finding and at the stage of issuing proc ess

prima facie satisfaction is sufficient and evidentiary value

to be attached to the documents is a matter to be

established during trial; the copy of the petitioner's twitter

handle with evidence of witnesses establishes the intent

behind the advertisement to defame; that the definition of

'person' would include juridical persons; that there could

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

be defamation even of a political party as there is

organizational reputation; that there is common intention

contemplated under Section 34 of IPC which makes al l of

the accused responsible and legally liable; that th e

propagation of the defamatory advertisement through

twitter handle would make the accused No.4 liable a nd

that the exceptions under Section 499 would not pro tect

the accused No.4 and Section 199 Cr.P.C is not applicable.

13. Heard both sides.

14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shashi Kiran

Shetty, representing Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, lear ned

counsel, has advanced arguments on behalf of the

petitioner while learned counsel Sri. Vinod Kumar M, has

advanced arguments for the respondent.

15. For the purpose of initiating proceedings

relating to an offence of defamation, the sine qua non is

that proceedings should be initiated by "some perso n

aggrieved". Section 199 of Cr.P.C embodies such

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

procedural requirement and Section 199(1) reads as

follows:

"No Court shall take cognizance of an offence

punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made

by some person aggrieved

by the offence:

Provided that where such person is under the age

of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is

from sickness or infirmity unable to make a

complaint, or is a woman who, according to the

local customs and manners, ought not to be

compelled to appear in public, some other person

may, with the leave of the Court, make a

complaint on his or her behalf."

(emphasis supplied)

16. It is a settled position that absent such

requirement, proceedings at the instance of any oth er

person would render the proceedings void. In the ca se of

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

Law and others

1

, the Apex Court in Para 198 has held as

under:

"198. The said provision is criticised on the

ground that “some person aggrieved” is on a

broader spectrum and that is why, it allows all

kinds of persons to take recourse to defamation.

As far as the concept of “some person aggrieved”

is concerned, we have referred to a plethora of

decisions in course of our deliberations to show

how this Court has determined the concept of

“some person aggrieved”. While dealing with

various Explanations, it has been clarified about

definite identity of the body of persons or

collection of persons. In fact, it can be stated that

the “person aggrieved” is to be determined by the

courts in each case according to the fact

situation. It will require ascertainment on due

deliberation of the facts. In John Thomas v. K.

Jagadeesan

2

while dealing with “person

aggrieved”, the Court opined that the test is

whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt

on account of publication is a matter to be

determined by the court depending upon the facts

1

(2016) 7 SCC 221

2

(2001) 6 SCC 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 974

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

of each case. In S. Khushboo

3

, while dealing with

“person aggrieved”, a three-Judge Bench has

opined that the respondents therein were not

“person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section

199(1) CrPC as there was no specific legal injury

caused to any of the complainants since the

appellant's remarks were not directed at any

individual or readily identifiable group of people.

The Court placed reliance on M.S.

Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise

4

and G.

Narasimhan

5

and observed that if a Magistrate

were to take cognizance of the offence of

defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not

an “aggrieved person”, the trial and conviction of

an accused in such a case by the Magistrate

would be void and illegal. Thus, it is seen that the

words “some person aggrieved” are determined

by the courts depending upon the facts of the

case. Therefore, the submission that it can

include any and everyone as a “person aggrieved”

is too specious a submission to be accepted."

3

(2010) 5 SCC 600 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299

4

(2000) 7 SCC 552

5

(1972) 2 SCC 680 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 777

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

17. Accordingly, the question as to whether the

complainant herein could be person aggrieved requir es

recording of a finding.

18. The complainant before the trial Court is

"Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its State

Secretary, BJP Karnataka, S.Keshava Prasad". Compla int

is brought before the Court by the aforesaid entity who for

all purposes is held out to be the person aggrieved.

19. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the

complainant is the National party as made out in Para 4, 8

and 9 of the complaint.

20. The complaint appears to indicate that its State

Unit, the Government formed by it (BJP Sarkar) and the

complainant i.e., the Bharatiya Janata Party (Natio nal

Party) have been defamed. However, the complainant who

has brought the legal grievance before the Court is the

National Party i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party. If that were to

be so, and the aggrieved person is the National Party i.e.,

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

Bharatiya Janata Party, then the complaint ought to have

been filed by the duly authorized representative of the

National Party. However, the letter of authorisatio n is

issued by the President of the State Unit to its Secretary of

the State Unit as made out by Ex.C.1. Such authoris ation

of the President of the Sate Unit cannot be accepte d as

legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a Natio nal

Party. Further, there is no material to indicate that the

Bharatiya Janata Party had authorised the President of the

Karnataka Unit to initiate proceedings. Accordingly, the

complainant is not represented by a competent person and

in the absence of which the aggrieved person being

represented by an incompetent person, vitiates the

proceedings.

21. The procedural requirement of complaint being

brought before the Magistrate by "some person aggrieved"

would require the entity defamed in the present cas e to

bring the complaint. The complaint broadly appears to

make out a case that it is the party that is the aggrieved

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

person. The complainant seeks to make out a case by

asserting that the allegations made in the advertisement

at Exhibit-C series i.e., C2 to C6 makes an imputation to

the complainant.

22. Insofar as accused No.4 and his role in

publication of the advertisement, a perusal of

advertisement at Exhibit-C series would indicate th at

except for the photograph of accused No.4 there is no

other apparent nexus of accused No.4 with the

advertisement.

23. In an action which seeks to fasten criminal

liability, it must be demonstrated that the imputat ion

made must be at the instance of a person who has mens

rea to defame. This legal requirement comes out from the

language of the provision as Section 499 of IPC stipulates

that the person who is stated to have committed the act of

defamation, must be a person "intending to harm or

knowing or having reason to believe". In the absenc e of

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

any material to show that the advertisement was at the

instance of accused No.4, the reliance on the

advertisement by itself could not lead to the assertion that

it was published by accused No.4 with the requisite

intention to defame.

24. Accused No.4 may have been a leader of the

party but did not hold any position in the organizational

hierarchy as on the relevant date as is made out by the

memo dated 11.02.2025. In terms of the memo, it is

specifically made out that the accused No.4 was neit her

the President nor the Vice President of the Indian National

Congress as on the date of advertisement. A mere

photograph on the advertisement would not be suffic ient

to indicate that the advertisement was at the instance of

accused No.4 when the legal provision stipulates that the

person must have requisite mens rea.

25. The position of the accused No.4 is different

and in contradistinction to the other accused and t heir

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

nexus to the advertisement by virtue of their position and

the contextual background of the complaint.

26. It is however necessary to notice that the

complainant's complaint also refers to tweet of acc used

No.4 wherein he is stated to have tweeted the

advertisement along with certain additional remarks. It is

stated that the said tweet in specific refers to BJP while

forwarding the advertisement which would tie down

accused No.4 as having defamed the complainant.

However, strangely the text of the said tweet has not been

marked along with other documents while sworn

statement was recorded nor any Section 65B certific ate

produced in requisite format.

27. The trial Judge when taking cognizance has

made reference to documents at Exs.C.1 to C14 which

does not include the said tweet. If the order of the trial

Judge issuing process has been passed after applyin g his

mind to the material before him and such material in the

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

form of tweet was not marked as an exhibit, then wh at

material would remain is only the advertisement bef ore

the Court when order was passed issuing summons. Sa ns

the tweet, the advertisement by itself as noticed a bove

cannot lead to any presumption of accused No.4 havi ng

defamed the complainant.

28. Insofar as the offence of defamation as regards

an entity, Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC does

indicate that there could be defamation of an entity such

as the company or an association or collection of persons.

Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC reads as follows:

"Explanation 2.— It may amount to defamation to

make an imputation concerning a company or an

association or collection of persons as such."

29. An imputation that 'party X' is corrupt, is by

itself defamatory and the entity which is alleged t o be

corrupt could be the political party. However, where the

imputation made is against certain individuals or class of

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

persons in the entity, then the person aggrieved would be

such individuals or class of persons within the larger entity

who have been defamed.

30. Such legal exposition comes forth in the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Khushboo

v. Kanniammal and another

6

as extracted below:

"26. ………….. Undoubtedly, the Explanation is wide

but in order to demonstrate the offence of

defamation, such a collection of persons must be

an identifiable body so that it is possible to say

with precision that a group of particular persons,

as distinguished from the rest of the community

stood defamed. In case the identity of the

collection of persons is not established so as to be

relatable to the defamatory words or imputations,

the complaint is not maintainable. In case a class

is mentioned, if such a class is indefinite, the

complaint cannot be entertained. Furthermore, if it

is not possible to ascertain the composition of such

a class, the criminal prosecution cannot proceed."

6

(2010) 5 SCC 600

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

31. Where a functionary such an office bearer of the

party is defamed, then such functionary who would be the

aggrieved person. In the present case, the imputati on

itself is by way of innuendo and such imputation is sought

to be stretched to the party. However, sans the tweet the

advertisement by itself makes no reference to the p arty

but rather makes an imputation to the functionaries

mentioned in the advertisement. The reference that is

made in the advertisement is to constitutional

functionaries and Government employees being

beneficiaries and to the irregularities in Governme nt

Schemes. None of the persons or entities referred t o

above are before this Court. Accordingly, the aggri eved

person in the advertisement at Exhibit-C series factually

cannot be the political party.

32. There have been series procedural lapses as

well since there is no enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

which is mandated where the accused is outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Objective of such

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure t hat

accused situated outside the territorial limits are not

dragged into litigation before a Court without the Court

being convinced of a prima facie case being made out to

issue summons to the accused, after an enquiry.

Considering that accused No.4 resides outside the

territorial limits of the Court, non following of Section 202

of Cr.P.C. procedure has prejudiced the said accused and

would also reveal a very casual approach of the

complainant in not insisting for such enquiry befor e

summons is issued to accused no.4.

33. The Court while issuing summons ought to

apply its mind so as to ensure that the consequence of

issuing process to an accused and thereby making hi m a

part of the prosecution of the complaint cannot be done

casually. The Court when issuing process has to mak e up

its mind that atleast a prima facie case is made ou t

against the accused. In the present case material before

the Magistrate in the form of Ex.C1 to C14 consists only of

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

the advertisement and on the basis of such material as

discussed above, no case is made out against accuse d

No.4.

34. Though learned counsel for the complainant

would contend that the tweet of accused No.4 is found in

the file and would be marked at a subsequent stage,

however, such explanation cannot cure the legal defect of

not having the tweet on record when process was iss ued

to the accused No.4. The marking of the Tweet thoug h

without 65B certificate would still have made a difference

insofar as 65B certificate could have been produced at a

subsequent point of time. However, absence the mark ing

of the tweet, the material before the trial Judge w hen

process is issued is legally deficient as there is no material

to connect the accused No.4 with the offence of

defamation.

35. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

continuance of the proceedings would amount to an a buse

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:9535

CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024

of the legal process and the proceedings in

C.C.No.7399/2024 (P.C.R.No. 3878/2023) insofar as the

petitioner - accused No.4 is concerned, is set aside.

Sd/-

(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

JUDGE

VP