Must a magistrate always examine a witness who says the complainant’s reputation fell in his own estimation before taking cognizance? Not necessarily, the Karnataka High Court has held while refusing to quash the defamation case against Yatnal filed by Shivananda S Patil.
Bengaluru: Remarks made in an interview broadcast on the YouTube channel “Gadinada Kranti” on April 30, 2025 will now be tested at trial, after the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition by Vijayapura City MLA Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal seeking to quash the criminal defamation complaint filed against him by Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil [Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal v. Shivananda S Patil].
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde pronounced the order on November 12, 2026, after reserving it on November 6.
No inflexible rule at the cognizance stage
The Court framed the question as whether, at the stage of cognizance, Explanation 4 to Section 356(1) BNS requires the complainant to examine a witness who says the complainant’s reputation was lowered in that witness’s own estimation. It held that the words “in the estimation of others” do not carry that mandate in every case. The Court summarised its view in four propositions, the first of which reads:
“At the time of taking cognizance for an offence and issuing process, in a case alleging defamation, Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC, or Section 356(1) of BNS, does not necessarily mandate the complainant to examine a witness other than the complainant to make a statement that the complainant’s reputation is lowered in the estimation of ‘said witness’.”
Whether such a statement is needed, it held, depends on the nature of the imputation. Where an imputation is inherently capable of lowering a person’s moral or intellectual character, a magistrate may take cognizance on the statements of the complainant and witnesses who say reputation fell in the estimation of others. Where it is not prima facie capable of doing so, a bare assertion may not suffice, and the magistrate may call for more material or the statement of a witness who speaks to his own estimation.
From the magistrate’s summons to the High Court
Patil filed a private complaint on July 18, 2025 under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). On January 24, 2026, the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, a special designated court, took cognizance in PCR No. 11492 of 2025 of the offence under Section 500 IPC (Section 356(2) BNS) and issued summons. The LXXXI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissed Yatnal’s revision on August 18, 2026. Yatnal then approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
What each side argued
For Yatnal, Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh argued that Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC and Section 356(1) BNS require that a person in whose estimation the complainant’s reputation was lowered must say so before the court. He submitted that the two witnesses examined had stated that the complainant’s reputation was lowered while also saying the allegations were false, so the requirement was not met.
Senior Counsel Ravi B Naik, for Patil, argued that the statements were not disputed, were per se defamatory and had circulated widely on social media, and that the two witnesses had stated that the complainant’s reputation fell in the estimation of others. At the cognizance stage, he said, a third-party statement of lowered esteem was not necessary.
Precedents and the words themselves
The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers, noting that the Section 225 BNSS objection was not raised, the trial court was a special designated court, a sitting MLA could not claim to reside outside its jurisdiction, and pre-cognizance notice had been issued and the accused heard. It declined to follow the Calcutta High Court’s view in Aveek Sarkar and held that S. Ranganathan (Madras) did not help the petitioner as two witnesses had been examined.
On the existence of possible damage to reputation, the Court said:
“The existence of the possible damage to the reputation, depending on the nature of the imputation and the material available, may be prima facie inferred from the circumstances surrounding the publication and the contents of the imputation itself.”
Examining the remarks, which were made in Kannada, the Court found that they “cast serious aspersions on the complainant’s integrity and character and are inherently capable of lowering the reputation of the complainant.” It added that whether the public believed the imputations, or whether reputation was in fact lowered, are questions for trial.
A petition dismissed, the merits left open
The petition was dismissed. The Court made clear that its observations are not an opinion on the merits of the complaint or the defence, and kept all contentions open for the trial court. Yatnal’s defence, including any statutory exception, remains to be tested at trial, and he is presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
Why the judgment matters
Defamation prosecutions are often challenged at the threshold on the ground that no third party has testified to thinking less of the complainant. The ruling settles, for Karnataka courts, that this is not an inflexible precondition at the cognizance stage: the nature of the imputation itself can supply the prima facie inference of harm to reputation.
At the same time, the Court built in a safeguard. Where words are not plainly defamatory, magistrates may insist on better material before summoning an accused. The test is calibrated to the content of the statement, leaving the harder questions of truth, exceptions and actual loss of reputation to the trial.
Case Title: Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal v. Shivananda S Patil [Criminal Petition No. 12881 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Date of Order: November 12, 2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh
For Respondent: Senior Counsel Ravi B Naik