The Karnataka High Court has dismissed BJP MLA Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal’s petition seeking to quash a criminal defamation case filed by Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held that examining a witness who personally believes the complainant’s reputation has been lowered is not mandatory in every defamation case at the stage of taking cognizance.
Background
The complaint arose from alleged remarks made by Yatnal during an interview broadcast on the YouTube channel Gadinada Kranti on April 30, 2025. Shivananda S Patil subsequently filed a criminal defamation complaint on July 18, 2025.
On January 24, 2026, the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognizance of the complaint under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and issued summons. Yatnal challenged the order before the Sessions Court, but his revision petition was dismissed on August 18, 2026. He then approached the High Court.
Yatnal argued that Explanation 4 to Section 356(1) of the BNS required the complainant to examine a person who could confirm that his reputation had actually been lowered in that person's estimation.
Rejecting this argument, the High Court explained that the law does not impose such a compulsory requirement in every case.
The Court observed:
"The expression 'in the estimation of others' though refers to the persons in whose estimation the complainant's reputation must be lowered, does not, by itself, warrant that the particular person whose estimation is alleged to have been affected must invariably be examined as a witness at the stage of taking cognizance."
The Court clarified that the requirement for independent witness evidence depends on the nature of the alleged imputation and the available material.
Examining the statements attributed to Yatnal, the Court found that they prima facie cast serious aspersions on the complainant's integrity and character.
It further observed:
"On perusal of the statement, there is no difficulty in taking a prima facie view that the statements cast serious aspersions on the complainant's integrity and character and are inherently capable of lowering the reputation of the complainant."
The Court also clarified that whether the public believed the allegations or whether the complainant's reputation was actually lowered would be examined during the trial.
Finding no error in the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Revisional Court, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Yatnal's criminal petition.
It clarified that its observations would not determine the merits of the complaint or the accused's defence, leaving all contentions open for consideration by the trial court.
Case Details
Case Title: Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal v. Shivananda S Patil
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 12881 of 2026
Judge: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Decision Date: November 12, 2026
