IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2331 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.2152/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: PRADEEP KUMAR R., AGED 50 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS), HYDRABAD INDUSTRIAL LIMITED, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, THYVALAPPIL HOUSE, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU FOR R1 SMT.N.SUDHA FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2358 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.2331 & 2358 of 2009 ------------------------------- ORDER Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2331/2009 is the second accused and petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2358/2009 is the first accused in C.C.No.2152/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur. First respondent is the complainant. He filed Annexure- A complaint alleging that the two accused committed the offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint and the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate thereunder contending that it is only an abuse of process of the court and no defamation, as provided under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, is made out. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and first respondent were heard. 3. Annexure-A complaint filed before the Magistrate, which was taken cognizance, shows that CRMC 2331&2358/09 2 first respondent was working as Tester-cum-Operator in the first accused Company from 1992 onwards. In paragraph 1 of the complaint itself, he admitted that he suffered severe mental pain and agony and ultimately he became “a mental patient and started treatment for the disease, Major Depressive Disorder.” The allegation is that because of the enmity with the first respondent, as he is an active worker of a Trade Union (V.V.M.S.), affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, accused started harassing him both mentally and physically and because of the mental strain, he had to take treatment for Major Depressive Disorder and with the knowledge of the illness of the first respondent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with malafide intention. It is further alleged that while undergoing treatment for Major Depressive Disorder, first respondent could not get previous sanction for leave and he was issued with memos and charges for not getting previous sanction for leave and consequently, the symptoms aggravated and accused obtained sadistic pleasure for his mental strain and agony. CRMC 2331&2358/09 3 4. The allegation of defamation is seen in paragraph 8 of the complaint. According to the first respondent, “because of the harassment and mental cruelty of the accused, he became a mental patient and the intention of the accused is to defame him. The accused made wide exaggerated circulation about the situation of the complainant in the staff meeting and also to the customers of the company. Accused told the customers that complainant is an acute mental patient and not capable of doing anything. The customers of the company are now treating him as an acute mental patient. The accused have given wide circulation for the same. The intention of the accused is to defame the complainant.” It is based on those allegations that the complaint was filed. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, even if the allegations in the complaint are to be accepted, it would not amount to an offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. It is the first respondent, who himself admitted that he is a mental patient, as it is unambiguously stated that he is suffering from Major Depressive CRMC 2331&2358/09 4 Disorder. Therefore, neither issuance of memos nor charges for not availing previous sanction for leave or disclosing the fact that first respondent has taken leave without sanction, in the meeting of the employees would amount to a defamation as provided under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. It would only result in wasting the valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings, which is only an abuse of process of the court. Petitions are allowed. C.C.No.2152/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur is quashed. 1st October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv