The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to quash a criminal defamation case filed against expelled BJP MLA Basanagouda Ramangouda Patil Yatnal over remarks he made against Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil during a media interview broadcast on the YouTube channel of Gadinada Kranti on April 30, 2025.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed a plea filed by Yatnal challenging the criminal proceedings.
In doing so, the Court rejected Yatnal's argument that the trial court had erred in taking cognisance of Patil's complaint without first examining a witness who could speak to whether Patil’s reputation had been lowered in that witness's estimation.
The High Court held that, at the stage of taking cognisance, a magistrate need not invariably insist on examining a witness other than the complainant to establish that the complainant's reputation has been lowered in the witness's estimation. Whether such a witness needs to be examined would depend on the nature of the alleged imputation and the facts of the case.
“The expression ‘in the estimation of others’ in Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or 356(1) of BNS (dealing with the crime of defamation) cannot be construed as having mandated, that in every case at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing the process, that a witness other than the complainant must be examined and said witness must state that in his own estimation the complainant’s reputation is lowered,” the Court held.
The defamation case against Yatnal stems from remarks he allegedly made about Patil on April 30, 2025.
The remarks came amid a political confrontation in which Yatnal reportedly challenged Patil and Congress MLA Vijayanand Kashappanavar to resign from the Assembly and face him in by-elections. The two leaders were among those who had criticised Yatnal over his remarks concerning Prophet Mohammed.
Yatnal, in his response, allegedly questioned Patil's parentage and claimed that his family had adopted the Patel surname for political reasons. He also accused Patil of cheating the Panchamasali community and taking money during a padayatra. The remarks also contained personal attacks on Patil's character and political conduct.
Patil filed a criminal defamation complaint against Yatnal on July 18, 2025.
On January 24, 2026, a magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and summoned Yatnal. The order referred to the complaint, the transcript of a pen drive, video clippings and the sworn statements of Patil and two witnesses.
Yatnal eventually approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal defamation proceedings.
He argued that Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines the offence of defamation, requires an imputation to lower a person's reputation in the estimation of others.
He contended that the complainant was therefore required to examine a person whose estimation of his reputation had allegedly been affected by the remarks. He argued that this should have been done before the trial court took cognisance.
The High Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 356 of the BNS does not make examination of such a witness compulsory in every case at the cognisance stage.
In the present case, the Court observed that Yatnal's statements prima facie cast serious aspersions on Patil's integrity and character and were inherently capable of lowering his reputation.
It also noted that the magistrate had taken cognisance based on the publication of Yatnal's remarks and the statements of two witnesses. The cognisance order, therefore, could not be said to be erroneous, the High Court held.
The High Court further emphasised that, at the stage of taking cognisance, the trial court is not required to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Such questions would have to be considered during the trial, the High Court held. It accordingly dismissed Yatnal's plea.
Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh appeared for Yatnal.
Senior Advocate Ravi B Naik appeared for Patil.
[Read Judgment]