IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 736 OF 2011() ---------------------------------------- STC.460/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH ELAMPLAKKATTU, S/O.JOHN, AGED 43 YEARS, ELAMPLAKKATTU HOUSE, UPPUPADANNA, CHAMATHACHAL P.O.,PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT 2. MATHEW KOOTANAL, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 45 YEARS, KOOTTNAL HOUSE,UPPUPADANNA, CHAMATHACHAL P.O.,PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT 3. JOSPEH MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, COLLAMBEL HOUSE,UPPUPADANNA, CHAMATHACHAL P.O.,PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STEPHEN KOTTANAL,S/O.CHACKO KOTTANAL HOUSE, UPPUPADANNA, CHAMATHACHAL P.O.,PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT 2. STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.736 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2, 4 and 12 in S.T. No.460 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. On a complaint preferred by the first respondent against petitioners and others learned Magistrate took cognizance as aforesaid. Learned counsel for petitioners has raised two points in support of the contention that the complaint is liable to be quashed, viz., there is no averment in the complaint that the first respondent is a person of good reputation so that the alleged statement affected his reputation in the mind of the right thinking people of the society and secondly, the mass petition allegedly given by petitioners and others to the appropriate authority and which contained the alleged defamatory statement is not appended to the complaint. I have heard learned counsel petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. So far as first contention is concerned I think a hyper- technical view cannot be taken at this stage to the averments in CRL.M.C. No.736 of 2011 -: 2 :- the complaint. The case is that on 07.10.2007 accused 10 and 13 trespassed into the premises of the house of the first respondent and threatened to kill him if the building is not vacated. First respondent preferred a complaint in that regard to the Payyavur police and the police summoned accused 10 and 13. They along with other accused as a counter-blast submitted a mass petition alleging that the first respondent is an anti social element. He states that he was degraded among the public and that public said that he is a man of bad morals and character. He has also stated that he is being ridiculed by the public (on account of the allegations in the mass petition). 3. It is true that it is not specifically stated in the complaint that the first respondent is a person of good reputation. But a reading of the averments in the complaint would show that on account of the statements in the mass petition allegedly given by the petitioners and others the first respondent is being viewed by the public with contempt as if he is an anti social element. I am not impressed by that contention because it is not specifically stated that the first respondent is a man of good reputation the complaint has to go. 4. The next contention is that a copy of the mass petition is not appended to the complaint. But the gist of allegation in the mass petition which according to the first respondent is CRL.M.C. No.736 of 2011 -: 3 :- defamatory to him is stated in Annexure-A1, complaint which is to the effect that petitioners and others stated in the mass petition that the first respondent is an anti social element. For the purpose of taking cognizance, that is sufficient. I do not find reason to interfere. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv