IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 554 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.3319/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------------------------------------- V.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, VENGUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, KURUMASSERY P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR. V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) MR. GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS/STATE & RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.P. VENU, THOMBRA VEEDU, MANJAPR P.O., ANGAMALY. 3. BIJU VARGHESE, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER AND EDITOR, MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD., MANJALI TOWER, AMMAN KOVIL CROSS ROAD, KOCHI - 3. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 554 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who is the complainant in Crl. M.P. No. 3319 of 2009, challenges Annexure A2 order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva rejecting the complaint. Annexure A1 is the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the two counter petitioners alleging an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC for having allegedly published defamatory statement in the Mangalam daily of which the 2nd respondent therein is the Printer, Publisher and Editor and the 1st respondent therein is the person who allegedly made imputations against the petitioner. When the complaint came up for consideration before the Magistrate on 26.11.2009, the Magistrate passed the following order:- “This is a petition filed u/s 190, 200 Cr.P.C by the petitioner. 2. Today the case came up for consideration the court passed the following:- Rejected as the printing and publishing of the alleged report was not done under the jurisdictional limits of this court and the matter is one with political connotations and one which is touching public questions.” Crl.R.P. No. 554/2010 : 2 : 2. I am not able to understand as to what the Magistrate meant by the expression 'political connotations' and 'touching public questions'. There is a specific averment towards the end of the complaint that the statement made by the 1st accused in the Mangalam daily dated 21.07.2009 was read by the complainant and others within the limits of the Angamali Police Station which is one of the territorial limits assigned to the learned Magistrate. The impugned order cannot be sustained since the complaint has been rejected at the pre cognizance stage by a non-speaking order. Even assuming that the court below was inclined to reject the complaint at the threshold, it should have passed a speaking order giving reasons which are discernible to a superior court. That has also not been done. I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondents 2 and 3 since the complaint was rejected at the pre-cognizance stage. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to deal with the complaint in accordance with law. Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. Crl.R.P. No. 554/2010 : 3 : rv