Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of actor and film critic Kamal Rashid Khan, commonly known as KRK, seeking to quash the criminal defamation case filed by actor Manoj Bajpayee for calling him a 'Charasi, Ganjedi' (one who takes drugs)
After hearing both sides, the bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh prima facie observed that addressing someone as 'Charasi, Ganjedi' was sufficient to harm his image and reputation.
Bajpayee had filed a criminal complaint u/s 200 of CrPC against Khan for offence allegedly committed u/s 499 and 500 of IPC.
Bajpayee had alleged that Khan using his twoTwitter handles i.e. ‘KRK BOXOFFICE’ & ‘KRK@kamaalRK’ with an intent to defame and harm his reputation tweeted two defamatory tweets on July 26, 2021 dubbing him ‘Charasi, Ganjedi’.
"From perusal of the language of the aforesaid disputed tweets which are said to be twitted by the applicant, prima-facie, it is apparent that addressing someone as 'charasiganjedi', is sufficient to harm the image and reputation of a person like the respondent who is admittedly an actor in the film industry. Calling/addressing someone 'charasiganjedi' cannot be equated with the illustration 'D' of 6th exception to Section 499 of IPC, as argued by learned counsel for the applicant," the Court observed.
Following criminal complaint by Bajpayee, a local court had registered offense u/s 500 of IPC against Khan.
Challenging the order of the local court, Khan had moved the HC arguing that the ‘KRK BOXOFFICE’ Twitter handle from which the tweets in question were made, had been sold by him on October 22, 2020, to Salim Ahmed and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for the tweets posted from that handle.
Bajpayee's counsel Ajay Bagadi argued that the declaration by which Khan's Twitter handle namely KRK BOXOFFICE was said to be sold cannot be considered at this stage.
The court noted that the applicant in his petition nowhere stated that Twitter handles namely ‘KRK BOXOFFICE’ & ‘KRK@kamalRK’ were not owned and used by him. “The issue whether the Twitter handle namely ‘KRKBOXOFFICE’ was sold prior to July 26, is a matter of evidence. Hence, prima-facie, this fact is established that at the time of incident, both the above Twitter handles were used by the applicant.”
Noting that at this stage, it cannot be said that trial court has committed any error in taking cognizance u/s 204 of CrPC and registering offence u/s 500 of IPC, the HC dismissed Khan’s plea.
