In Brief
A newspaper owner in Karnataka was prosecuted for defamatory matter published in his daily, alongside the editor. The High Court quashed proceedings against the owner alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reasoning that only the editor, not the owner, can be prosecuted for defamation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court's order was improper and unstructured. The Court clarified that criminal liability for defamation under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC depends on proof that each accused committed the specific acts (making, publishing, printing, or selling) with requisite knowledge or intention—not on title or position. Section 482 cannot be casually invoked to quash proceedings without proper scrutiny of the complaint and the law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.