IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3062 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.575/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MANI GANGADHARAN,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR,GREEN HOUSE,KSEB ROAD, VIYYUUR POST,THRISSUR. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.ASAF ALI,S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, HAFZA MAHAL,ENGAKKAD PO,THALAPPILLY TALUK 680 589. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN, SRI.P.S.HARIHARAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.3062/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WADAKKANCHERY, DTD. 02/09/2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO. 505/2011 OF THE SUB COURT THRISSUR DTD. 05/04/2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO.3255/2011 IN O.S.NO.505/2011 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 05/04/2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 18/4/2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3062 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November 2011 O R D E R 1st respondent is absent today also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has already shown indulgence by adjourning the case though there was no representation on behalf of the first respondent on earlier dates also. Hence, I am not inclined to adjourn the case again. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation is that the statement in paragraph 4 of Annexure C affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, in the suit, O.S.No.505/2011, which was pending before the Sub Court, Thrissur is defamatory. That was a suit with regard to the conduct of election to the Governing Committee of the Hospital mentioned in that suit. In that suit, an application was filed for issuance of commission to Crl.M.C. No.3062 of 2011 -: 2 :- supervise the election. That election was scheduled to be had on 16.4.2011. It was in that application for issuance of commission, the affidavit – Annexure C - was filed. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it was stated by the petitioner that there was likelihood of persons attending the meeting by using 'proxy cards'. Another statement in the very same paragraph is that on earlier occasions also, the defendants therein had conducted election illegally by threatening persons who used to question their illegal activities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no imputation as alleged in the complaint so as to contend that an offence of defamation was committed by the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of Annexure C would only show that the petitioner herein had expressed his apprehension and grievance to the court, to enlighten the court as to the necessity for issuance of commission to supervise the election. The learned counsel further submits that after the commission was issued by the court, the election was called Crl.M.C. No.3062 of 2011 -: 3 :- off on 15.4.2011. As such, there was no necessity for the conduct of election or to have a commission to supervise the same. The learned counsel further submits that the allegation in the complaint is too vague and imprecise to take cognizance of an offence under Sec.500 of IPC. That, according to the learned counsel may be the reason why the first respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court to counter the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The so called imputation appears in the affidavit filed before the Court, accompanying the application filed for issuance of a commission. What was stated was that there was likelihood of committing fraud or forgery in the conduct of election. It was not stated who among the respondents therein were defamed. It is difficult to hold that the offence under Sec.500 IPC has been made out so as to put the petitioner to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further Crl.M.C. No.3062 of 2011 -: 4 :- proceeding in C.C.No.575/2011 on the file of J.F.C.M., Wadakkanchery is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt