IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2364 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.1736/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ------------------------------ 1. SUBHAS P.P., AGED 48, S/O.PARAN, PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, KEEZHUPPILLIKKARA P.O., CHITTILAYI DESOM, TRISSUR. 2. ASHRAF, AGED 44, S/O.KHADAR, KUNMAMKANDATH HOUSE, KURUBILAVU VILLAGE, P.O.PAZHUVIL, TRISSUR. 3. DAMODHARAN, AGED 56, S/O.MAMAN, KOORIYIL HOUSE, NEAR P.O., KIZHUPPILLIKKARA BUND, TRISSUR. 4. P.A.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51, S/O.AYYAPPAKUNJU, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE P.O.KURUMBILAVU, VALI DESOM, NEAR CHERUPU POLICE STATION, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/FORMAL PARTY: ---------------------------------------- 1. SUHAS, AGED 40, S/O.CHANDRAHASAN, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PAZHUVIL DESOM, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, TRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.RAJIT FOR R1 SRI.RANJIT BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.4041/2009 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2364/2009 DISMISSED. 13.8.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.2364 OF 2009 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1736 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur. The above case arose on a complaint filed before that court by the 1st respondent imputing that the petitioners/accused had defamed him by publishing a notice containing defamatory statement and thus they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below took cognizance of the offence as above, summoned the petitioners, and the proceedings thereof are now in progress. Petitioners had approached with the above petition contending that the complaint does not reveal any offence under Section 499 of the IPC, and as such, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1736 of 2008 on the file of the court below is illegal and abuse of its process, and if the proceedings CRL.M.C.2364/09 2 are continued, it will be against the ends of justice. Petitioners have therefore sought for quashing the above criminal proceedings against them invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and also the 1st respondent/complainant and the Public Prosecutor. From the submissions made at the time of hearing and also perusing the annexures produced, it is evident that the publication and notice had been made making some aspersions against the 1st respondent/complainant in relation to some disputes over the reclamation of some paddy land and obstructions to a water course allegedly running through the property of the complainant. Admittedly, over such disputes, there were proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also writ petitions before this Court between the parties. Annexure-IV is the notice published by the 1st petitioner on behalf of a Kolpadavu Committee, which is styled as a 'protest notice' and some statements made in such notice against the petitioners are CRL.M.C.2364/09 3 stated to be defamatory, and that has given rise to Annexure-VI complaint. Perusing Annexure-VI complaint, it is seen, styling of the 2nd respondent/complainant and his father in the notice as 'kapada aasamikal' ( ) with a further statement that the public should take note of them as such, form the very basis of complaint to impute that by publishing such notice, the petitioners had defamed the complainant and committed the offences alleged. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointing out that the word 'aasamy' in common parlance only means “astute, cunning, pawky” contended that it cannot be considered as defamatory at all. Fairly conceding that the word 'aasamy' as such could not be considered as defamatory, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, contended that it was prefixed by 'kapada' and that would indicate that the petitioners had intentionally used such terms in the notice to defame the 2nd respondent and his father before the general public. Though some other imputations are also imputed in the Annexure-IV notice against the 2nd respondent/ complainant and his father as to their highhandedness in CRL.M.C.2364/09 4 threatening the members of the Kolpadavu Committee and of removing a board put up that the filling of paddy lands is prohibited, as indicated earlier, Annexure-VI complaint is based only over the use of the terms “kapada aasamikal” against the complainant and his father as defaming them and not over any other aspersions in such notice. So much so, whether such usage in the notice published by the Kolpadavu Committee through its Secretary, the 1st petitioner, in the backdrop of the circumstances presented, namely disputes over the reclaiming of paddy land as between a Kolpadavu Committee and the complainant, who is alleged by the committee as having filling up his land and blocked the water course to the paddy land, whatever be the truth or merit of such allegations, require to be looked into whether the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners need be continued to advance the ends of justice. The offence of defamation necessarily demands proof that the imputation or accusation made by the offender had been done with intend to have or that he knew or had reason to believe that thereby he would harm the reputation of the other person. An CRL.M.C.2364/09 5 imputation or accusation simplicitor without proof of requisite intention, knowledge or belief that it would harm the reputation of the person concerned, would not constitute the offence of defamation. The word 'aasamy' ( ) ordinary means only shrewd, skilful etc. In the notice, some more emphasis is given to that word by adding 'kapada', which indicates false. In the backdrop of the surrounding circumstances presented in the case, some disputes persisting between the parties over the alleged obstructions caused over a water course running through the property of the complainant to the paddy land, it is evident in the emotionally energised atmosphere for the common cause of the public, the owners of the paddy land as a whole published the notice. Solely for the reason that the word 'kapada' was included before the term 'aasamikal', it cannot be stated that the petitioners, the members of the Kolpadavu Committee, had intention to defame the 2nd respondent/complainant before the public. There is nothing to indicate that the publication and notice was done with any malevolent motive or with mala fide intention to cause aspersion or to expose the complainant/the 2nd CRL.M.C.2364/09 6 respondent to ridicule and harm his reputation. In the given facts of the case, I find that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to sheer wastage of time and an abuse of process of court. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1736 of 2008 on the file of the JFCM-I, Thrissur, emanating form its complaint, is quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.2364/09 7