IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1318 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.6/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- JOHNEY JOSEPH, KUDAKKASSERIL HOUSE, ARUMANOOR.P.O, AYERKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.NIREESH MATHEW, MR.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAGOPAL, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, ARUMANOOR.P.O, AYERKUNNAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.H.B.SHENOY, MR.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY, MR.ABU MATHEW, MR.THOMAS P.MAKIL, MR.SOBHAN GEORGE, MR.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA). R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1318 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.No.6/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottayam. Case of the first respondent in Annexure- A complaint is that his name, as an accused person, was included in the charge sheet after pronouncement of the judgment in C.C.No.689/1998 by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam and in that case investigation was based on the information furnished by the petitioner and allegations in that case against the first respondent are totally false and baseless and petitioner and first respondent had to face trial for offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and learned Magistrate, under Annexure-B judgment, acquitted him and while the case was in progress, CRMC 1318/09 2 first respondent had to stand in the witness dock as an accused and it gave impression to the people that he committed heinous and shameful crime and it affected his reputation and spoiled his image and in such circumstances, petitioner committed the offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A complaint and the proceedings taken therunder. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the allegations in Anenxure-A complaint, even if accepted in toto, do not make out an offence under Section 499 which is punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. Even the entire case in Annexure-A complaint is accepted, because of enmity and grudge, at the instance of the petitioner, police submitted a CRMC 1318/09 3 charge sheet roping the petitioner also as an accused. Even though first respondent is innocent and he has to stand as an accused for several years and by standing in the accused dock, some people gathered there had the impression that he is a criminal and it affected his reputation, at best, it can be said that case of the first respondent is that he was maliciously prosecuted at the instance of the petitioner. But, that does not mean that first respondent committed an offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. In the absence of an allegation that petitioner, by words, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations made or published any imputation concerning the first respondent, intended to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Continuation of the proceedings is clearly an abuse CRMC 1318/09 4 of process of the Court. Petition is, therefore, allowed. C.C.No.6/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottayam as against the petitioner is quashed. 17th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv