IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3329 of 2006() ------------------------- CMP.NO.1649/2006 IN STC.3638/2006 OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------- M.V. HAREENDRAN, ADVOCATE, HARITHA, PANNYANPARA, P.O. CHALAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. O.P. JYOTHI LAKSHMI, D/O.SAHADEVAN, SUPHILE QUARTERS, PULKIPALAM, ELAYAVOOR THAZHECHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S H O KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 SRI.E.R.VENKITESWARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. 3329 of 2006-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 ORDER Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein has filed this petition seeking to quash the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 499 read with Section 500 IPC, against him. Ext.A4 is stated to be the order by which the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process to the petitioner. 2. In Annexure A1 complaint respondent No.1 alleged that the two accused (petitioner and his nephew) got assignment of the property belonging to her and her sister for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakhs without paying the entire sale consideration at the time of registration. According to the complainant, the accused promised that the amount would be paid later. But the accused thereafter paid only Rs.4 lakhs and promised to pay the balance sum of Rs. One lakh after two days. When the complainant met the accused to collect the balance amount as requested by him, he abused her in filthy language and threatened her and her sister that they would be maligned in public. The accused published a news item in the evening newspaper alleging that the complainant had stolen Rs.80,500/- from his car. This news item, which came to the notice of several of her well wishers and relatives, caused great mental agony to her and her sister. The Crl.MC.3329/06 2 complainant therefore prayed that the two accused be proceeded against for the offence punishable under Section 420, 499 and 500 IPC. 3. The learned Magistrate took the sworn statement of the complainant. After considering the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate held that no material was available to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 against the petitioner. However the learned Magistrate proceeded to hold that sufficient material was available to try the petitioner for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The said order is impugned in this petition, while seeking to quash the same. 4. It has to be noticed at once that there is nothing on record to show that the newspaper was being edited, printed or published by the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint against respondent No.1 before the Police in connection with the theft of a sum of Rs.80,500/- from his car which, according to him, was committed by respondent No.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Police had registered a crime against respondent No.1 and the investigation was in progress. It was at that stage that respondent No.1 had filed this private complaint as a counter blast to the above crime registered against her. 5. It is also brought to my notice that petitioner's nephew who had in fact purchased the property from respondent No.1 and her sister had obtained an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.1 and her relatives from committing trespass into the property. This order of temporary injunction was passed by the civil court on May 6, Crl.MC.3329/06 3 2006. According to the petitioner this also had instigated respondent No.1 to file Annexure A1 complaint against him. 6. Having carefully perused the materials available on record, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 IPC against the petitioner. 7. It may be true that petitioner might have filed a complaint against respondent No.1 alleging commission of an offence under Section 379 IPC against her. The Police had registered a crime against respondent No.1 and investigation was in progress. If a news report happened to be published in respect of the above crime, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for the same, especially since there is nothing on record to indicate that he was instrumental for the same or that he was in fact responsible for such publication. The registration of the crime was not in dispute at all. 8. In any view of the matter, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under sections 499 and 500 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore the proceedings pending against the petitioner in STC.3836/06 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No.I, Kannur are quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.