IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4669 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.956/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. THANKAMANI, W/O.SEKHARAN, RESIDING AT ERATH HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD. 2. PRASEETHA, W/O.MANOJ, RESIDING AT ERATH HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD. 3. GEETHA, W/O.SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT ERATH HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. ARUNDHATHI, W/O.RAVI, RESIDING AT PEEDEKAPPURATH HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD.P.O, PORKKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI.RAJIT FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAHIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4669 of 2008 APPENDIX ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. M.C. NO. 4669 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. O R D E R This is a petition by the accused in C.C. 956 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, who is facing prosecution for offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The first respondent is the complainant before the trial court. Going by the copy of the complaint produced as Annexure A2, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner had filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam, alleging that the first respondent had committed theft of Rs. 92,000/- from the shelf of the residence of the defacto complainant and that the petitioners spread rumour that the first respondent is a thief. According to the first respondent, that is a false allegation and the same would amount to defamation. 2. Taking cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint, process was issued to the petitioner. 3. The copy of the complaint filed before the Station House Officer is produced as Annexure A1 along with the first information report. Going by Annexure A1, it is seen that nobody was accused by name. The complaint CRL. M.C. 4669/2008 2 is only that there occurred theft of the amount from the shelf of the house of the defacto complainant. In the above circumstances, I find no material to come to a conclusion that there was any defamatory statement made by the petitioners against the 1st respondent before the police. In the above circumstances, I find that the learned Magistrate went wrong in taking cognizance. Going by Annexure A1 I find that no defamatory statement was given by the petitioners as against the first respondent. In the result, while allowing this petition Annexure A2 complaint is quashed. Sd/- P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-