A Bengaluru special court on Wednesday stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation case against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad over statements about Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Special Judge KB Shivaprasad prima facie disagreed with the Magistrate court's view that the locus standi of the complaint is an issue that need to be decided only during the trial and not at the preliminary stage.
The authority to file the complaint is a primary requirement in a criminal defamation case, the special judge underscored.
Hence, the Court issued notice to complainant A Tejas and called for the records.
“The authority to file the complaint is a primary requirement and under the said circumstance, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires examination in this revision,” the Court said.
The Court was hearing criminal revision petitions challenging the June 27, 2026 order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which had taken cognizance of the offence of defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against two accused and issued summons.
Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Priyank Kharge, argued that the complainant had given different versions regarding his alleged association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) but had failed to produce material establishing that he was an RSS member.
Hence, the complainant was not an aggrieved person competent to maintain a private complaint for defamation, it was contended.
He further argued that an aggrieved person must be a definite and identifiable person who has suffered a specific legal injury. In the absence of material establishing the complainant's membership of the RSS and his status as an aggrieved person, the complaint was not maintainable.
Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, appearing for Nalapad, argued that Section 222(1) of the BNSS specifically requires a complaint by an aggrieved person for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 356 of the BNS.
He also contended that the Magistrate had failed to record adequate reasons for taking cognizance against his client.
The Court noted that the Magistrate had treated the question of the complainant's locus standi as an issue to be decided during trial.
“The authority to file the complaint is a primary requirement,” the special court said, adding that the issue required examination in the revision petition.
The Court also noted that summons had already been issued and the Magistrate had proceeded with recording evidence.
“In case, the matter is further proceeded, the purpose of this revision would be defeated,” the Court observed.
Hence, it stayed the trial proceedings.
The matter will be heard next on October 30.
The petitions were filed through advocates Shathabisha Shivanna and Parithosh SM.
[Read Order]