IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3356 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.162/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SAJI WILLIAMS, AGED 40, W/O. LATE WILLIAMS, PUVATHOOKARAN HOUSE, CHENGALOOR.P.O, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION. 2. JOHNY, AGED 50, S/O. CHACKO, PUVATHOOKARAN HOUSE, CHENGALOOR.P.O, CHENGALOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.M.N.MANOJ SRI.A.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 41, S/O. GEORGE, ELAVUMAKKAL HOUSE, CHENGALOOR.P.O, CHENGALOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3356 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution alleging the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations raised is that the accused persons with deliberate and mala fide intentions have been spreading canards against the complainant in the locality. They are alleged to have made statements that the complainant is a person unfit for placing reliance and that no one must take him for employment and he “an unworthy beast - varathanaya marappatti” should be driven away from the locality. The complaint was filed before the Magistrate. Sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Summons was issued to the accused. 2. The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution against the petitioners may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.3356 of 2008 2 3. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the two witnesses, to whom the statement was made, were examined before the learned Magistrate and their sworn statements were recorded, they have not in their statements specifically deposed that such imputations were made against the complainant. 4. I am afraid, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked for the reason stated. The sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses are not recorded with the assistance of the counsel and even assuming that there are gaps in the sworn statements recorded, that cannot cost the complainant his case. It is by now trite that the allegations in the complaint must be read along with the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded and the complete story must be gathered from the totality of circumstances. The mere fact that the learned Magistrate, who recorded the sworn statements, has not elicited all the vital details, I am afraid, it cannot be reckoned as a crucial circumstance to justify premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioners. I am satisfied that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not deserve to be invoked. Crl.M.C. No.3356 of 2008 3 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. Needless to say that I have not intended to express any final or authentic opinion on the complicity of the petitioners. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter their rights to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that great hardship, loss, inconvenience and prejudice will be suffered by the petitioners if their personal appearance were insisted by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners can certainly apply for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C and it is for the Magistrate to consider such petition and pass appropriate orders on merits on such application expeditiously. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-