Kerala High Court
Mohanan Vaidyar vs Vijith on 24 March, 2026
CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 1
2026:KER:25827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO.748 OF 2021
CRIME NO.368/2018 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
CC NO.3/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, PATTAMBI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 MOHANAN VAIDYAR
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, BINDU NIVAS,
MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
2 JACOB VADAKKUMCHERRY
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.V.C.POULOSE, VADAKKUMCHERRY,
MALLPPURAM P.O., VYPIN, KOCHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJU J PANICKER
SRI.S.SUJIN
SRI.KURIAN K.JOSE
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 VIJITH
AGED 37, S/O.VIJAYAN,
KALLADATHU VALAPPIL, EZHATHOOR P.O.,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD 679534.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME
NO.0368/2018 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION).
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 2
2026:KER:25827
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 270 of the IPC and Sections 118(b) and (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'K.P. Act'). They seek to quash Annexure A2 charge sheet and all further proceedings in the above C.C.
2. Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 charge sheet arise out of a complaint filed before the Thrithala Police Station by the 1st respondent, who is an Ayurveda Doctor. It had been alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had uploaded and circulated videos on social media conveying that the Nipah virus is "a stupidity of the drug mafia and the deaths that have occurred in connection with the Nipah virus has been created by the Health Department." The said videos, it is contended, had the propensity to lead the common man to believe that the Nipah Virus is not dangerous, thereby misleading CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 3 2026:KER:25827 the people and hindering the earnest work put in by the health workers and doctors who had been tirelessly working to contain the spread of the virus. Based on the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent, Crime No.368 of 2018 was registered in Thrithala Police Station. Petitioners contend that Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 charge sheet is not sustainable and no offence under Section 270 IPC and Sections 118 (b) and (e) of the K.P. Act is made out against the petitioners. They thus seek to quash the Charge sheet and all further proceedings in the C.C.
3. Heard Sri.Kurian K. Jose, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri.T.K.Vipin Das, learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. Service against the 1st respondent is complete as per the registry report.
4. As regards the 1st petitioner, it is pointed out that the matter against him has apparently abated consequent to his demise.
5. As regards the sustainability of Annexure A2 Final report and proceedings against the 2nd petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that the same are not sustainable against him in law. It is contended that, to attract the alleged offences, the CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 4 2026:KER:25827 accused must have the mens rea to commit them. According to the learned counsel, the fair/honest intention of the 2nd petitioner/accused could be gathered from the mere fact that the accused has been in the field of medicine for the past 20 years, and the accused will not make a false statement wilfully since it will affect his credibility in the field. Thus, the lack of mens rea, according to the learned counsel, justifies the quashing of the proceedings against the 2nd petitioner as sought for.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel that Section 270 of the IPC is not attracted as against the accused, and the proceedings initiated under the said Section are fit to be quashed. As regards the complaint of the 1st respondent that he saw some videos circulated by the accused stating that Nipah virus is not dangerous and that Nipah virus is "a stupidity of the drug mafia and the death occurred in connection with the virus that had been created by the Kerala Health Department" it is contended that there is no 'malignant act' from the part of the accused in making such videos and circulating the same. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that by such an act, the accused knows or had CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 5 2026:KER:25827 reason to believe that it will spread the infection. According to the learned counsel, the accused had only given his opinion based on his experience. The ingredients of Section 270 IPC thus have not been attracted against the accused. As regards Sections 118 (b) and (e) of the K.P.Act, it is contended that the accused has not knowingly spread rumours and has not given any false alarm to mislead the essential services. It is also the case for the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused had not knowingly done any act that would cause danger to the public or jeopardise public safety. According to the learned counsel, since the Final report does not disclose any ingredients to attract Sections 118 (b) and (e) of the K.P. Act, laying a charge under the said Sections is illegal and fit to be quashed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that no cause or reason has been made out to quash Annexure A2 as against the 2nd petitioner. It is submitted that the very fact that the accused had not denied the factum of the social media posts by them and had only sought to justify it by contending that there was no guilty mind, by itself, would render the matter CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 6 2026:KER:25827 beyond the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
8. As regards the 1st petitioner, I note as pointed out that the matter against him has apparently abated. As regards the 2nd petitioner, I note that he has been charged under Section 270 IPC and Sections 118 (b) and (e) of the K.P.Act. The question to be considered is whether a case has been made out for quashing the Final report and all further proceedings in the C.C. initiated against him in this application filed under Section 482 IPC.
9. It is trite and settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. However, it is indeed the duty of this Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law [See Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060]. Coming to the Sections under which the accused have been charged, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 270 IPC. It reads as follows:
270: Malignant Act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life: Whoever malignantly does any Act, which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 7 2026:KER:25827 description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.
The term 'malignant act', as used in the said Section, highlights the intent behind the said Act. It implies a deliberate and harmful motive.
The principal contention put forth by the accused is that such a motive was absent in him when he was instrumental in posting the relevant material on social media. Did the accused cause the relevant social media posts to be placed in the public domain for all the world to see with such 'malignant intent', or was it only an act done with no intent to cause deliberate harm?
10. It is trite that mens rea or 'guilty intent' cannot be decided or adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482. This Court cannot indulge in a mini-trial to evaluate the reliability of evidence or the absence of guilty intent. The same matters involve factual aspects and need to be determined by the trial court. It is relevant to note that the accused does not deny that the social media posts/videos are not attributable to him. The contention is that, so as to attract a charge under Section 270, he must know, or should have a reason to believe, that his act is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, which, according to him in CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 8 2026:KER:25827 the present case, was absent. The said question cannot be decided in this Section 482 petition. It needs to be decided by the trial court based on materials presented before it. It is relevant in this context to note that the 2nd petitioner has stated about himself in the Crl.M.C. as follows:
"The 2nd Petitioner is a popular Yoga and Naturopathy Specialist in Ernakulam, Kochi. The 2nd Petitioner has had many happy patients in his 20 years of journey as a Yoga and Naturopathy Specialist. He has completed Diploma of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences (DNYS). He is currently practising at Nature Life Hospital in Ernakulam, Kochi. The 2nd petitioner has authored four books about naturopathy and lifestyle. He runs seven treatment centres in Kerala, where he advises natural medicines, chemical-free foods, and natural methods."
It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the said admission by itself strikes at the very root of the contention of the accused that he never knew or had reason to believe that his act is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to human life by interfering with the efforts of the health service personnel to contain the spread of the virus. Since it is the specific claim of the accused that he is 'popular' among the public, thereby conveying that a section of the public relies on and believes his statements on affairs concerning health and diseases, the accused, it is submitted CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 9 2026:KER:25827 by the learned Public Prosecutor, was reasonably well aware of the detrimental consequences of his statements disseminated through social media upon the general public and their health and safety.
11. Be that as it may, the question as to whether 'Malignant act' as mentioned in Section 270 would include the act in which the accused is alleged to have indulged in the impugned charge sheet, and whether such act would come within the ambit of the mischief sought to be penalised under the said Section are questions to be considered by the trial court in appropriate proceedings and the same cannot be effectively adjudicated in a petition filed invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the question whether the accused had 'knowingly' spread rumours and had given any false alarm to mislead the essential medical services or whether the accused had 'knowingly' done any act that would cause danger to the public or jeopardise public safety, as covered by Sections 118
(b) and (e) of the K.P. Act are all matters beyond the ambit of this Court to enquire under Section 482. As laid down in Anukul Singh (supra), the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, and no mini-trial CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 10 2026:KER:25827 ought to be carried out in its exercise.
In view of the above, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. However, it is clarified that all questions are left open for consideration by the trial court in appropriate petitions/proceedings and nothing stated herein above shall be deemed to touch on or decide any question, factual or legal, involved in the matter.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl CRL.M.C.NO.748/2021 11 2026:KER:25827 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 748 OF 2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. 368 OF 2018 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.368 OF 2018 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION.