IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1831 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.324/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II,MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 3 TO 5: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. T.J.THANKACHAN, SENIOR MANAGER (P&A) MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD., NEAR AROOR TOLL GATE, NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR POST, ALAPPUZHA 688 534. 2. SHANI PRABHAKAR, NEWS READER, MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD., NEAR AROOR TOLL GATE, NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR POST, ALAPPUZHA 688 534. 3. ROMI MATHEW, REPORTER, MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD., NEAR AROOR TOLL GATE, NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR POST, ALAPPUZHA 688 534. BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.RADHA, ADVOCATE, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN, "SACHU HOUSE", KOMALLOOR, CHUNAKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.1831/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.324 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, MAVELIKKARA FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX.B: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 6/05/2008 IN CC NO.96/2006 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEX.C: COPY OF PETITION NO.67 OF 2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE KERALA BAR COUNCIL. ANNEX.D: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 23/06/2008 RENDERED BY CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEX.E: COPY OF MEMO DTD. 10/01/2009 FILED IN CP NO.67 OF 2006 BEFORE KERALA BAR COUNCIL, REFERRED TO IN THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE. ANNEX.F: COPY OF MEMO DTD/.03/10/2008 FILED IN O.P.NO.96 OF 2006 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL FORUM ALAPPUZHA, REFERRED TO IN THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE. ANNEX.G.: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 17/06/2010 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.4171 OF 2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1831 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused 3 to 5 in S.T.No.324 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikkara for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that petitioners who are news readers telecast a news item about first respondent (allegedly) cheating her client and the latter initiating proceeding against the first respondent. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of Annexures –E to G. Learned counsel submitted that the news item was based on a dispute between the first respondent and her client which was settled at various levels and based on that settlement this Court quashed proceeding against accused 1 and 2 by Annexure-G, order. Annexure-E is the photocopy of a memo filed by the first respondent and her client before the Bar Council concerning a matter which was pending there. It is stated therein that the dispute is settled between the first respondent and her client. Annexure-F is the photocopy of a memo jointly filed by the first respondent and her client before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha reporting settlement of the dispute between them. This court in Annexure-G, oder accepted the settlement between accused 1 and 2 and the first respondent and quashed proceeding against accused 1 and 2. Crl.MC No.1831/2011 2 2. There is no case of any settlement between petitioners and the first respondent. Settlement is only between accused 1 and 2 and the first respondent. In Annexure-G, order this Court made it clear that since there is no settlement between first respondent and accused 3 to 5 (petitioners herein) offence against them could independently stand even without the junction of accused 1 and 2. Hence based on Annexures-E to G, request to quash proceeding against petitioners cannot be entertained. 3. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to settle the dispute with first respondent and move appropriate application to quash proceeding against them. With the above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks