IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1541 of 2011() ------------------------------ CMP.2507/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIAN DYNAMIC KALARI (IDK), REP.BY ITS OWNER CUM PROPRIETOR MR.K.M.JAMAL GURUKKAL, S/O.MAMMU, GURUKKAL, KOTTOL AYURVEDIC NRUSING HOME AND INDIAN DYNAMIC KALARI, NEAR VYABARABHAVAN, PATTAMBI, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SRI.K.M.JAMAL GURUKKAL, S/O.MAMMU GURUKKAL, PLROPRIETOR CUM OWNER, KOTTOL AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME AND INDIAN DYNAMCI KALARI, NEAR VYABARABHAVAN, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 10 AND STATE: ----------------------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, SREE POONTHURA SOMAN, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION SPORTS COUNCILS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SREE POONTHURA SOMAN, SECRETARY, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIASTION BODY DHARMA INSTITUTE OF MARSHAL ARTS, PLOONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. SRI.K.P.ABDUL KADER, PRESIDENT KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ACADEMY, PILLAYAR KOVIL ROAD, KANNUR-670 001. 4. K.P.JAYAPRAKASH, JOINT SECRETARY, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION 38/796, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD DISTRICT KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION PALAKKAD-678 001. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1541 of 2011 2 5. M.K.RAJAGOPAL, JOINT SECRETARY, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION, GOVT.I.T.I., NEAR MALIKADAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 001. 6. C.VISWANATHAN GURUKKAL, PATRON, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION VALLABHATTA KALARI, KALADI P.O., KUTTIPURAM VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-683 574. 7. P.A.JOY GURUKKAL, TREASURER, KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION, JOY MARAMMATHIRUMMU KALARI SANGAM, POST OFFICE JUNCTION, PLUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 305. 8. K.P.KRISHNADAS, VICE PRESIDENT KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION VALLABHATTA KALARI SANGAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506. 9. I.NASSAR GURUKKAL, VICE PRESIDENT KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION JAI HIND KALARI SANGAM, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 562. 10. R.VASANTHAMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT KERALA KALARIPAYATTU ASSOCIATION NELLIMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 524. 11. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKAULAM-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 ORDER The complainants in a private complaint is the revision petitioners as they are aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2010 in C.M.P.No.2507/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the above complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also perused the order impugned. 3. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate is wrong in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C, holding that the petitioners failed to prove prima facie case that the reputation of the complainant was affected by the mischief committed by the accused. According to the learned counsel the notice itself is a defamatory one and especially when the learned Magistrate is of opinion that the complainant has deposed in terms of the complaint when he was examined under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Thus, according to the learned counsel the order impugned is liable to be set aside, particularly when several litigations are pending between the Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2011 2 parties to the private complaint. 4. I am unable to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel in support of his attempt to assail the order impugned. From the observation and findings entered into by the learned Magistrate it appears that except the complainant who examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, no other witness is examined and no other evidence adduced by the complainant. It may be true, that on the basis of the above defect, the learned Magistrate had observed that in the absence of materials and evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant has proved prima facie case that the reputation of the complainant is affected due to the mischief committed by the accused. But according to me, in order to make out grounds to proceed with the complaint, wherein the allegation is under Section 500 and Section 34 of IPC, the complainant has to show that the alleged defamatory statement or notice resulted in adverse affect with respect to the reputation of the complainant in the general public or among the persons those who came across with such notice. Thus, according to me, the reason given by the learned Magistrate that there is no other witness or other evidence or materials in support of the allegation, is sufficient to dismiss the Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2011 3 complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Hon'ble apex court reported in 2010 (2) KLD 222(SC) Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another. I am of the view that the dictum laid down by the apex court in the above decision has no relevance in the present case, because of the factual difference between the reported case and the present one. There is no doubt, the dictum laid down by the apex court, the question of application of the dictum laid down in the apex court in the decision arise only when the petitioner makes out grounds to attract the essential ingredients of the Section of offences alleged as per a properly instituted complaint. In the result, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate challenges in this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/