Kerala High Court
Malayala Manorama Company Ltd vs Unknown on 25 March, 2013
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/4TH CHAITHRA 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1170 of 2008 ( )
----------------------------
CC.769/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
----------------------------------------------------------
1. MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD.,
PB NO.160, THAMPANOOR EAST, TRIVANDRUM-695 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR, MAMMEN MATHEW.
2. JACOB MATHEW, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
MALAYALA MANORAMA, PB NO. 160, THAMPANOOR EAST
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.
2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI,
POONILATH ANANDA BHAVAN, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.ROSE MICHAEL
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSEPH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.LALEEDHARAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1170 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2013.
ORDER
Accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.769 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C."). Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case are the following:
A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). It is the case of the 2nd respondent that pursuant to the publication of two news items on 09.08.2005 and 10.08.2005 in the malayalam daily printed and published by the petitioners, he suffered disrepute, defamation and ignominy. Annexures-B and C are the copies of the news items published by the petitioners.
2. A person by name, O.T.Martin George filed Annexure-D, complaint before the Circle Inspector, Palode Police Station alleging offence of cheating against the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, they have only extracted the material averments contained in the complaint (Annexure-D) in the news items. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate, which is produced herein as Annexure-A, does not make out any of the ingredients of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC.
Crl.MC No.1170/2008 2
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the records.
4. Point to be decided is whether the allegations in the complaint (Annexure-A) taken together will constitute an offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC. Section 499 IPC defines the offence of defamation in the following words:
"Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person."
It is argued that to rope in the accused with an offence of defamation, there must be an averment in the complaint of the intention on his part to harm the complainant by tarnishing his reputation or there must be imputation of knowledge or there should have reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the totality of allegations in the complaint only shows that the news items were published without bonafides. To establish bonafides of the petitioners, they have produced the news items and the complaint filed by the complainant against the 2nd respondent before the Police. On perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate, this Court is unable to find any specific allegation of intention or knowledge to harm the reputation of the 2nd respondent.
5. Reliance is placed on the decision in Rekha and others v. Vinodan T.S. and another (2009 (3) KHC 477) to contend that in order to attract Crl.MC No.1170/2008 3 an offence under Section 499 IPC there should be an allegation that the words spoken or published were made with an intention to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. Annexure-A, complaint does not spell out the necessary ingredients.
6. Respondents contended that intricate questions of fact cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also contended that the petitioners are legally entitled to move the trial court for a discharge. In answer to this argument, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that if the substratum of the complaint does not reveal an offence at all, it will be improper to direct a person to stand the trauma of a trial. As mentioned earlier, in the absence of a specific allegation in the complaint to constitute an offence of defamation as defined in Section 499 Cr.P.C. I am of definite opinion that the complaint is liable to be quashed on that legal infirmity.
In the result, petition is allowed. The complaint leading to registration of C.C.No.769 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram and the entire proceedings therein are quashed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks