Kerala High Court
K.M.Mathew vs O.J.Joseph on 25 September, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/19TH CHAITHRA 1935
CRL.MC.NO. 693 OF 2010 ( )
-------------------------------------------
C.C NO.217 OF 2009, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------
1. K.M.MATHEW, CHIEF EDITOR, MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY, KOTTAYAM.
2. THOMAS, CHIEF NEWS REPORTER, PALA
BUREAU, MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, MATTATHIL BUILDINGS
PALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. O.J.JOSEPH,S/O.FRENCH OUSEPH,
ORATHEL HOUSE, KURIANADU P.O., MONIPPALLY VILLAGE.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO R1
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI VIJU THOMAS R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No.693 of 2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.
NO.217 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COUT, PALA.
ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS APPEARED
IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 25.9.2007.
ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS APPEARED
IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.9.2007.
ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
08.10.2007 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE-E TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
2.11.2007 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TO ANNEXURE-D
LAWYERS NOTICE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.693 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2013.
O R D E R
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C requesting to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in C.C.No.217/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. The complaint is filed against two accused persons alleging offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. It is submitted that the first petitioner expired pending this proceedings. Therefore, charge against him is abated. Second petitioner is the Chief News Reporter, Pala Bureau of Malayala Manorama Daily. Gist of the allegations in the complaint is that complainant/first respondent was working as Assistant Store Keeper in K.S.R.T.C Pala Depot, Kottayam. He claims to be a public Crl.M.C.No.693 of 2010 2 spirited person and an active trade unionist. Annexure B and C are the reports, published in the news paper managed by the petitioners, which according to the complainant/first respondent was per se defamatory. Gist of allegations in the news item is that the first respondent, while working as store keeper, for his illegal gain, misused this authority. He committed irregularities in purchase of spare parts and amassed wealth. Annexure B and C reports show that the first respondent was put under suspension in connection with an enquiry. It is also mentioned that the political outfit, in which the first respondent was a member, was planning to take action against him. According to the first respondent, all these statements are untrue and defamatory.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Crl.M.C.No.693 of 2010 3 first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and another v. State of T.N and others ((1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 632), contended that the article published in news paper was based on facts. Further, the public officials like the 1st respondent cannot claim immunity on the basis of right to privacy. The press was acting in a reasonable manner after verification of the facts. Therefore, the guidelines in the said decision regarding privilege is available to the 2nd petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that whether the contents of the news item was true or not is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. I am not satisfied that there is any legal question involving in the Crl.M.C.No.693 of 2010 4 case in which extraordinary jurisdiction of this court can be invoked under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that all these issues, now raised before this court, can be raised by the petitioner before the court below, at the time of hearing on charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below may be directed to give exemption to the 2nd petitioner from personal appearance, in the event of second petitioner filing a petition before the court below. Learned Magistrate shall in that event consider it, and pass appropriate orders. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A to Judge amk