IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 161 of 2005(A) ------------------------- CC.488/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MANAVEEYAM KURIES PVT. LTD., ARAFFA TOWER, VELIYANNOOR ROAD, THRISSUR-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, T.I.GEORGE. 2. T.A.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, CHAIRMAN, MANAVEEYEM KURIES, THYKKATTIL VEEDU, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR-7. 3. DR.M.V.SUKUMARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. VELUKUTTY, MELITTA VEEDU, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR. 4. T.A.JOSE, AGED 53, S/O. ANTONY, THYKKATTILVEEDU, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR-7. 5. K.J.JOJU, AGED 48, S/O. JOSE, KONIKKARA VEEDU, MANALIPADATH, KURIACHARA P.O., THRISSUR. 6. JAISON FRANCIS, AGED 38, ALOOR KOKKAN VEEDU, NETTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR. 7. K.G.BHASKARAN, AGED 48, KODIYATTIL VEEDU, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR-7. 8. JOSEPH, AGED 58, MANAGER, MANAVEEYEM KURIES PVT. LTD., VELIYANOOR ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN RESPONDENTS: crl.m.c..no. 161/2005 2 ------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN K.N., KAIMAPARAMBIL, 196, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR-7. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN FOR R1 SRI.MANJU ANTONEY FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON 28-8-2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: crl.m.c..no. 161/2005 3 ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO. 6695/2005 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 161 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 28-8-2008 SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ks. M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 161 of 2005 ====================== Dated this the 28th day of August 2008 ORDER Petitioners 1 to 8 are accused in C.C.No.488/2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur and the same was registered against them on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, which was made over to the Court of Judicial Fist Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and sworn statement of CWs.1 and 2 were taken. Subsequently, notices were issued to the petitioners herein for their appearance before the concerned court. The petitioners have produced Annexures A1 to A7 along with this petition. Annexure-A1 is the certified copy of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein against petitioners 1 to 8 alleging offence under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A2 is CRMC.161/2005 -2- the true copy of document No.1 produced by the first respondent along with the complaint as the copy of the circular sent to the shareholders of Manaveeyam Kuries Pvt.Ltd. on 25-9-2002 referred in paragraph 7 of Annexure-A1. Annexure- A3 is the copy of the letter dated 23-5-2003 alleged to have been published by the petitioners which, according to the first respondent herein, contained defamatory statements made against him produced as document No.7 along with the complaint which was referred in paragraphs 9 and 11 of Annexure-A1. Annexure-A4 is the copy of the registered letter dated 12-5-2003 sent by the first respondent herein. Annexure A-5 is the copy of the letter dated 28-4-2003 sent by the first respondent to the Manager of the first petitioner, Manaveeyam Kuries (P)Ltd. and Annexure-A6 is the copy of the reply dated 5-5-2003 to Annexure-A5. Annexure-A7 is the copy of the registered notice dated 26-5-2003 sent by the first respondent to the petitioners and others wherein it is stated that copies of Annexures A3 and A4 were handed over by them to his friends and the Directors of Gurupadmam Kuries wherein the first respondent is working as the Chairman. Certified copies of the CRMC.161/2005 -3- sworn statements of Cws.1 and 2 recorded by the learned Magistrate in the complaint filed by the first respondent before that court were also produced by the petitioners subsequently along with Crl.M.P.No.3629/2008. 2. It is also alleged in this petition that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on the basis of Annexure-A3 anonymous letter, which has no connection with any of the petitioners herein and Annexure-A4 is admittedly written by the first respondent, which is not defamatory to him. The allegations against the petitioners made in the complaint are intended to defame them. Further, there is no ingredient to attract Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and hence this petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.488/2004 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent denying all the allegations against him in the petition and also averred that the first respondent was the founder and the Chief Promoter of Manaveeyem Kuries (P)Ltd. and functioned as the CRMC.161/2005 -4- first Manager of the company and the first Board of Director till 29-9-2002. At present, the first respondent is working as the Chairman of Gurupadmam Chitty Company. Petitioners 2 to 8 have sent Annexure A3 along with photocopies of the registered letter sent by the first respondent to them with some imputations therein to the Directors of the above said chitty company and copies of the same were circulated among the public so as to tarnish his reputation, which contain defamatory statements against him. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate has conducted enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and another witness. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioners 2 to 8 and initiated further proceedings. It is also prayed to dismiss this petition with costs of the first respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the first respondent. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner, Manaveeyem Kuries (P) Ltd.,Thrissur, is represented by the Chairman of the Company CRMC.161/2005 -5- and petitioners 2 to 8 are the direct Board Members of the Company. The first respondent was the Manager of the first petitioner company and he was removed from the post subsequently. It is submitted by the learned counsel that Annexure-A1 complaint was filed by the first respondent herein before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur to harass them and Annexure-A3 is an anonymous letter alleged to have been published by the petitioners along with Annexure-A4 letter admittedly sent by the first respondent to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, none of the petitioner has any connection with Annexure-A3 anonymous letter and that no manuscript of the same has been produced by the first respondent to implicate the petitioners and to connect them with the said letter. Thus, the allegations in the complaint were intended to defame the petitioners. 6. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that Annexure-A3 letter has been sent by petitioners along with photostat copies of Annexure-A4 letter sent by the first respondent to petitioners 2 to 8 which has been imputed in such a way so as to tarnish the reputation of the first respondent and CRMC.161/2005 -6- the same were sent to the Directors of Gurupadmam Chitty Company wherein the first respondent is working as the Chairman and copies of the same were also circulated among his friends and to the the public. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and the witness, and applied his mind properly before taking cognizance of the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioners herein and initiated further proceedings. Thus, it is submitted that this petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs of the first respondent. 7. The prayer in this petition filed by petitioners 1 to 8 is to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.488/2004, which is pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. C.C.No.488/2004 has been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the private complaint, Annexure-A1, filed by the first respondent, which, according to CRMC.161/2005 -7- the first respondent, contains the statements published by petitioners 1 to 8 so as to tarnish his reputation among the public, his friends and the Directors of Gurupadmam Chitty Company wherein he is working as the Chairman at present. Annexure-A1 complaint was preferred by the first respondent on the basis of an anonymous letter, Annexure-A3 dated 23-5-2003, which according to the first respondent was sent by the petitioners herein along with photostat copy of another letter,Annexure-A4, sent by him on 12-5-2003, after making some imputations therein. 8. On a perusal of Annexure A3, it is evident that there is nothing to connect petitioners 1 to 8 with that document so as to make them liable for the alleged defamatory statements contained therein. Annexure-A4 is admittedly written by the first respondent which is not defamatory to him. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “Defamation,-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, CRMC.161/2005 -8- the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.” Section 199(1) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.” 9. Thus in order to sustain a criminal action for defamation against the petitioners, it must be shown that they have intended to harm the reputation of first respondent and with that intention the petitioners have printed the letter, Annexure-A3 and published to others with the contumacious knowledge and belief that it would result adversely to the reputation of the first respondent among the public. As per the complaint, only the making and publication of Annexure-A3 with the imputations in Annexure-A4 constitute the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioners must intend to hurt the feelings of the first respondent by printing and publishing Annexure-A3. So also, petitioners should send Annexure-A3 along with copy of Annexure-A4 after making imputations therein with the intention to defame the first respondent. On a perusal CRMC.161/2005 -9- of Annexures-A3 and A4, there is nothing to connect petitioners with those documents so as to implicate the authorship and the circulation of the same with the petitioners herein. Therefore, it will be an abuse of the process of court to drag the petitioners 1 to 8 as the accused in C.C.No.488/2004 to face the ordeal of the trial. It is also averred in the complaint, Annexure-A1 that the accused and the complainant are not on cordial terms from 25-9-2002 onwards. Thus, it is evident that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted by the first respondent herein as the complainant with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners/accused 1 to 8 and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. No prima facie case is made out against petitioners 1 to 8 that they have any connection with Annexures-3 and 4 so as to make them criminally liable for the offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complaint, Annexure-A1 is not maintainable against petitioners 1 to 8/accused 1 to 8 in C.C.No.488/2004 who had no role either in the making or in the publishing of Annexures 3 and 4 regarding the alleged imputation. CRMC.161/2005 -10- 10. For the foregoing reasons, Annexure-A1 complaint which does not make out the alleged offence against petitioners 1 to 8 cannot be allowed to stand. It is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.488/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur is also quashed. The Crl.M.C.is allowed. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.