IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3750 of 2003() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN MALAYATH @ R.K. MALAYATH, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, MALAYATH VEEDU, KODATHIPADI, NILAMBUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADDL.R2. NIRMAL KUMAR, S/O. LATE KUNJUNNI NAIR, MUTHUKKAD, KAVALAMUKKATTA, AMARAMBALAM PANCHAYAT. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.8050/2003 DT. 8/8/2003. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJETHI ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.4962/2003 IN CRL.M.C.3750/2003. ------ DISMISSED. 22/2/2008. SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3750 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. ORDER Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in CC.No.352/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nilambur. 2. It appears that Nilambur Police had registered Crime No.492/2000 (Annexure II) on the basis of Annexure I complaint lodged by additional respondent No.2 herein. In Annexure II First Information Report the Police had incorporated offences punishable under Sections 500, 506(1) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner the Police had completed the investigation and laid Annexure III charge alleging commission of the above offences. 3. But learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police dated July 25, 2002 deleting the charge under Section 500 IPC. He submits that pursuant to the report , the court had directed the petitioner to face charge under Section 506(1) and 294(b) IPC only. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the prayer made by the petitioner to quash the above proceedings pending against him is legally valid and sustainable. 5. In Annexure I complaint, the complainant (additional respondent No.2) alleged that on October 12, 2000, a copy of a Crl.MC.3750/2003. 2 magazine called Palco Crime had been received at his tharwad house by post, containing an article imputing immoral activities about his younger brother Sri.Gopinath, who is a famous magician. The article contained certain defamatory and derogatory statements against Sri.Gopinath alleging that he had been having illicit relationship with the women artists in his troop and that he had been presenting those lady artists before some important personalities. The complainant further alleged that he had come to know that photocopies of the above article were being sent by post to several other people and that he suspected that the accused was doing so. 6. It was further alleged that on the same day viz., October 12, 2000 at about 1 p.m. the accused had telephoned and enquired whether he had received a copy of the magazine. Further, the accused had allegedly informed the complainant that he had got thousands of photocopies of the above article with him and that he would be distributing them among the public in order to defame his younger brother Gopinath. The further allegation in the complaint was that on the same day in the evening while he and one Kavalamukkattayil Premarajan had met the accused and talked about the matter, the accused had used filthy language against him. 7. It is contended by Sri.Alan Pappali, learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge laid by the Police before the court on the basis of the above complaint is clearly an abuse of process. He submits that Annexure I complaint did not reveal any offence much less those under Sections 506(1) and 294(b) IPC. The complainant did not disclose what were the abusive words used by the accused against the Crl.MC.3750/2003. 3 complainant. Similarly the allegation that the accused had telephoned and threatened the complainant is also totally vague and non specific. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the main allegation in the complaint was that the complainant suspected that it was the accused who was behind the distribution of copies of the alleged defamatory articles against his younger brother. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel his younger brother viz., Sri.Gopinath who was targeted in the article in question had not chosen to lodge a complaint against the accused. The vague assertion made by the complainant that the entire family of the complainant had been defamed through the article is not sufficient to incriminate the petitioner in the case. 8. I find considerable force in the above contentions raised by the petitioner. Though respondent No.2 had been served with notice, he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. Nevertheless I have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. I have also gone through the Case Diary made available by the learned Govt. Pleader. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I find no justification in allowing the proceedings pending against the petitioner to continue. In my view, the above proceeding is a clear abuse of process. Therefore the proceedings pending in CC.No.352/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nilambur are quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed. A.K. Basheer an. Judge.