IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5012 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.30/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.5929/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JOSE D'CRUZ @ MOSAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JUSA, ZION, JUSA ROAD, AIRPORT JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. R.BINDU (ADVOCATE), PAVARMATHI MANDIRAM, T.C.22/804, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.S.AJITH KUMAR, GEETHA BHAVAN, BGRA-145 TEMPLE LANE, AYOORKONAM, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.M.SURESH BABU, KALAPPURAKKAL, MNRA - 52,ARAPPURA, ELIPODU ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. B.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE, PAVARMATHI MANDIRAM, TC 22/804, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. R.BAIJUMON, T.C.7/1749,PAMMATHALA HOUSE SREE CHITHIRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. RAJEEV GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREEPADAM, PONNUMANGALAM LANE, PAZHAYA KARAKKAMANDAPAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. 7. BALACHANDRAN R., T.C.5/2067-10, VGRA-VP-5.KAWADIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R8 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 5012 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 O R D E R A private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed (rejected) by the learned Magistrate. That rejection/dismissal was challenged before the Sessions Court in revision. The learned Sessions Judge in revision upheld the action of the Magistrate clarifying that it amounts to rejection of the complaint and not a dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? 3. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to initiate proceedings against the accused persons for having committed the offence of defamation against the petitioner. The impugned orders, it may be clarified, would not fetter the rights of the petitioner to complain of such culpable conduct of defamation allegedly indulged in by the respondents/accused. Crl.M.C.No. 5012 of 2008 2 4. I have gone through the complaint and the impugned orders. In the complaint it is not alleged and the courts below have not considered the question whether any act of the accused would amount to defamation or not. In these circumstances if the petitioner has a grievance that the accused or any of them has defamed him by making any defamatory imputations, the impugned orders cannot and shall not stand in the way of the petitioner initiating proceedings against such accused persons, who are alleged to have indulged in the culpable act of defamation against the petitioner. 5. Tthis Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the observation that the dismissal of this petition or the impugned orders shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to complain about defamation, if any, committed by the accused or any of them against him. Needless to say, such allegations will have to be considered seriously by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision will have to be taken on such complaint, if any, filed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm