IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10889/2011 BETWEEN: Sayyed Quadri, Sb Nuroodhin Quadri, Age: 52 years, 0cc: Social Service, R/o Aziz Manzil, Hanuman Temple Road-Gangavathi, District Koppal. - Petitioner (By Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate) AND: M.A. Walisaheb Hakim Saheb, S/o M. Karim Sab, Aged: 48 years, 0cc: Agriculturist & Business, Basaveshwara Badavane, Hospet, Dist. Bellary. -Respondent (by Sri Anant R. Hegde, for Hegde, Neeralgi & Paffi, Advocates) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 28.09.2010 thereby taking cognizance as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 500 r/w 34 of IPC in C.C. No. 3286/2010 (P.C. No. 18/2010) pending on the file of AddI. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the same alleged offence the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in three different Courts on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that certain statement attributed to him had been reported in two daily newspapers namely, “Dcccan Herald” and “Vijava Karnataka”, and a weekly, “i-iai [3ango[ore”. It is the case of the petitioner that in so far as the statements attributed to him reported in the daily newspapers are concerned, a case has been registered before the Court of Koppal and whereas the statements attributed to him, reported in the weekly, is pending in Hospet, whereas yet another case asserting defamatory statements made by the petitioner has been lodged in kolkata. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner while drawing reference to Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to contend that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on three fronts in respect of the same offence and hence seeks interference by this Court. 2. Admittedly the petitioner has made statements xvii ch have been reported in three different newspapers. Therefore each would constitute a distinct offence and asointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner staements are not alike and they are different, which, according to him are of a defamatory in nature. Therefore the contention that in terms of Section 71 of the indian Penal code, the petitioner cannot be punished thrice over, in respect of the same offence, ma not strictl apply. Even if it is applied, while imposing punishment, any punishment imposed in the first case would be set-off against punishment that may be mposed in the cases decided later. In so far as the application of Sec. 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure is g 4 concerned, it would again turn on the question whether the offences alleged is in respect of the very same statements, which is a question of fact, the details of which would be gone into by the respective Courts and which is subject to such defences as may be available to the petitioner, before the respective Courts. In so far as Section 2h of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is concerned, when the defence that is available to pehtioner that in respect of the same offence he could not be punished twice, would equally apply and therefore the petitioner could press into service the above prorisions of law to contend that such punishment. would not be sustainable. Accordingly the petition is disposed of without prejudice to the defences that may be available to the petitioner in the pending Sd/ JUDGE