https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024 The court allowed the amendment of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance, citing the prevention of multiplicity of proceedings and lack of prejudice to the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings based on the amendment. Additionally, the court held that jurisdiction lies where the act and consequence of harming reputation occur, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the complaint was not maintainable in Bangalore due to the alleged defamation taking place in Mysore. The court upheld the proceedings in the case before the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 18:29:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024 The court allowed the amendment of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance, citing the prevention of multiplicity of proceedings and lack of prejudice to the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings based on the amendment. Additionally, the court held that jurisdiction lies where the act and consequence of harming reputation occur, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the complaint was not maintainable in Bangalore due to the alleged defamation taking place in Mysore. The court upheld the proceedings in the case before the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024