Bengaluru: In a big setback for Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, MLA from Vijayapura constituency, Karnataka high court has refused to quash proceedings against him in a defamation case registered by Shivanand S Patil, MLA from Basavana Bagewadi constituency.Yatnal had challenged the defamation case registered last year. Shivanand Patil had alleged that Yatnal’s statement broadcast on a YouTube channel damaged his reputation. On Jan 24, 2026, the special court for elected representatives headed by a magistrate had taken cognisance. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by a special court for elected representatives presided over by a sessions judge on Aug 18, 2026.Challenging both these orders, Yatnal claimed that the two witnesses examined on the complainant’s behalf have stated that the complainant’s reputation is lowered. However, at the same time the said witnesses have also stated that the allegations are false.According to him, unless the person, other than the complainant, in whose estimation the complainant’s reputation is lowered makes a statement to that effect before the court, the requirement of Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or Section 356(1) of the BNS is not fulfilled and cognisance for the said offence cannot be taken.Not mandatoryHowever, after perusing Section 499 of IPC or Section 356(1) of the BNS, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde was of the view that at the time of taking cognisance for an offence and issuing summons, 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 of a witness other than the complainant at the time of taking cognisance is required or not is dependent on the nature of imputation and other materials and attendant circumstances. If the imputation is of such a nature that the court prima facie finds that it is inherently capable of lowering the moral or intellectual character of the complainant, or projects him as a person of bad character or as having engaged in conduct generally considered disgraceful, then the court may, without insisting on a statement from a witness that, in his own estimation, the complainant’s reputation is lowered, take cognisance and issue the summons based on the statements of the complainant and the witness who states that the complainant’s reputation is lowered in the estimation of others, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has noted in his order passed on Nov 12.Where the imputation is not prima facie capable of lowering the complainant’s reputation within the meaning of Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or Section 356(1) of BNS, a mere assertion by the complainant and his witness that the reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others may not be sufficient. In such circumstances, the magistrate, to satisfy himself the essential ingredient of defamation is prima facie made out, may require further material or the statement of a witness other than the complainant who would say that in his own estimation the complainant’s reputation is lowered, the judge further added while declining to interfere with the orders passed by the magistrate as well as the sessions judge against Yatnal.