IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 966 of 2005() ---------------------------------- CC.738/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9 REPRESENTED BY P.M.MOHAMMED HANEEF. 2. M.A.MOHAMMED YOOSEF, GENERAL SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9. 3. N.V.THAYAPPAN, ORGANIZING SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9. 4. CHERIYAN EAPEN, ORGANIZING SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9. 5. N.E.PETER, ORGANIZING SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9. 6. P.P.JACOB, ORGANIZING SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, W/ISLAND NORTH END, COCHIN-9. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SMT.ALPHONSA KURIAN W/O. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CP) COCHIN PORT TRUST, W/ISLAND, COCHIN-9. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RATHEESH FOR R1 SMT.SUMA RATHEESH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------------- Criminal M.C. No. 966 OF 2005 (A) ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The accused in C.C.738/2002 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is the petitioners herein. 2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.738/2002, in which the accused are prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure II contains the alleged defamatory statements and there is a description of a certain person but without really naming the said person. It is contended that firstly, there is nothing in Annexure II to link the accused with alleged offence. Secondly, nowhere in Annexure II, is there any reference to the complainant in person. The allegations made are of general nature. There is nothing in Annexure II to indicate that it is directed against the complainant. Crl.M.C. No.966/2005 - 2 - The petitioners herein have specifically denied the authorship of Annexure II. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. I have perused Annexure II. It is true that Annexure II does not contain any indication sourcing the publication to the Cochin Port Trust Staff Association. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that other evidence have been produced before the court below, apparently to prove the source of the complaint. Adv.Sri.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, at any rate, Annexure II does not refer to the complainant in person and if that be so, there is no reason for the complainant to assume that the alleged defamatory statements refer to her. 4. These are matters which ideally should be considered by the trial court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Crl.M.C. No.966/2005 - 3 - Procedure. But in the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that complaint is filed in 2002 it is only appropriate that the accused be exempted from personal appearance, unless such appearance becomes absolutely necessary. The court below shall take note of this observation. In the result, the Criminal M.C. is disposed of, subject to what is stated above. Sd/- V. GIRI, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.