No Absolute Immunity for Defamatory Statements in Judicial Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

“Statements made in police or judicial proceedings can constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC – but limitation under Section 468 CrPC is absolute,”  In a significant ruling Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two complainants challenging a Magistrate’s refusal to take cognizance of offences including defamation and malicious prosecution allegedly committed by the accused by filing a false complaint in 2008.

Justice Ravi V. Hosmani, while affirming the Magistrate’s order, held that statements made in police complaints and court proceedings are not absolutely immune from defamation prosecution, and the applicability of exceptions under Section 499 IPC must be factually established. However, the High Court ultimately rejected the petition on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and the bar under Section 195 CrPC extended to the entire transaction, preventing cognizance.

"Statements Made to Police or in Court Can Attract Section 500 IPC – No Blanket Immunity"

Rejecting the accused’s argument that statements made during litigation were protected by privilege or exceptions, the High Court observed:

“Statements made in a police complaint or judicial proceedings can give rise to prosecution under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. No absolute immunity is available merely because statements are made in judicial proceedings.” [Para 12(i), 14–17]

The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court authorities including Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(AIR 2016 SC 2728)] and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi [(1996) 6 SCC 263], affirming that:

“A person making libellous statements in his complaint filed in court is not absolutely protected in a criminal proceeding for defamation.” [Para 15]

The Bench reiterated that the Fifth Exception to Section 499 IPC, which allows criticism of parties’ conduct in judicial proceedings, applies only when the statements are made in good faith and confined to the merits of the case:

“To escape from consequences of statements made (including in judicial proceedings), it would require to be established that they fall within any of the Exceptions to Section 499 IPC, or made in good faith and without intention to harm reputation.” [Para 16]

Complaint Filed in 2017 Alleging Defamation in 2008 Held Barred by Limitation

Despite recognizing that defamatory allegations made in complaints may trigger prosecution, the High Court concluded that the private complaint filed in 2017 was hopelessly barred under Section 468 CrPC, which prescribes a three-year limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment up to two years, such as Section 500 IPC.

“Offence under Section 500 IPC is punishable up to two years – hence, the limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC is three years.” [Para 19]

The complainants contended that limitation should begin from August 10, 2016, when the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against them. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument:

“Same would not be acceptable, as Section 469 of CrPC provides for no such exception and complainants have not made out any case for exclusion of period under Section 470.” [Para 20]

Accordingly, it held that the delay of over nine years in initiating prosecution was fatal.

Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Applies to Whole Transaction Originating in Police Complaint

The complainants had alleged offences under Sections 182, 211, 499 and 500 IPC, asserting that the accused falsely implicated them in 2008. However, the Court emphasized that since all alleged offences arose out of the same transaction – the act of filing a police complaint – the bar under Section 195 CrPC (which prohibits courts from taking cognizance of certain offences without prior sanction) was applicable to the entire transaction.

“Genesis of all offences was filing of complaint before police – bar under Section 195 CrPC extends to entire transaction.” [Para 19]

The trial court had also found that no material was produced to establish that the complainants’ reputation had been lowered, which the High Court endorsed, holding:

“Revisional court will not substitute its view where trial court’s order is reasoned and legally sustainable.” [Para 21–22]

Challenge Based on Section 202 CrPC Also Rejected – Complainant Cannot Raise Grievance About Enquiry Meant to Protect Accused

The complainants also argued that the Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. However, the Court clarified that this procedural safeguard is meant for the benefit of the accused:

“Mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is for the benefit of accused residing beyond jurisdiction – complainant cannot invoke non-compliance to assail refusal of cognizance.” [Para 18, 12(ii)]

Reputation May Be Protected, But Prosecution Must Be Timely and Procedurally Sound

While affirming the right to reputation as a constitutional value, the Court ultimately upheld the lower court’s order, refusing to take cognizance of offences alleged by the complainants, both on merits and on procedural grounds.

“Statements in police or court proceedings are not absolutely immune, but criminal prosecution for defamation must comply with limitation and procedural bars under CrPC.” [Summary]

The decision reiterates that right to prosecute for defamation, even if arising from false complaints, must be exercised within the framework of limitation, procedural compliance, and statutory bars.

Date of Decision: 6 January 2026