IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3257 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.1472/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- KAREEM, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, ATTAKATTU HOUSE, KAKKANDUTHARA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ALIYAR, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VELLANIPADINJACKARA HOUSE, KAKKATTUTHARA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, V.K.COLONY P.O., ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R2 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3257 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. The complainant in a private complaint filed by him had alleged that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. against him. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant, has issued process against the accused. The petitioner has come to this court with a prayer that the proceedings against him may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annex.I is the so called complaint filed by the complainant before the learned Magistrate. A cursory reading of the complaint must convince the court that there is no bonafies. There is no worthwhile allegation constituting the offence punishable under Crl.M.C.No. 3257 of 2006 2 Section 500 I.P.C. In the complaint it is mentioned that earlier a notice was sent to the petitioner by the complainant and a reply was submitted thereto. Those documents are produced as Annex.III and IV. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the same has also been perused by me. 3. I find merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint read along with the sworn statement of the complainant as also the documents produced do not reveal any specific allegation of commission of the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. When was the defamatory imputation made? On what date and at what time and to whom was the publication made? What precisely were the defamatory words used by the petitioner against the complainant? Who has witnessed such defamatory statements, if any, made? On all these aspects, the complainant is silent, inadequate and vague. A perusal of the notice issued prior to the complaint and the reply do also reveal that the situation is not in any way improved by those documents. Equally vague, general and sweeping allegations are made without any specific Crl.M.C.No. 3257 of 2006 3 details about the alleged defamatory statement. It is an oral statement, it appears, that is relied on by the complainant as the foundation of the allegation of defamation. Even the specific words are not seen mentioned. At worst what is revealed is that the complainant was intending to go for Haj pilgrimage and the petitioner had alleged that the complainant had trespassed into a property. 4. To put it in a nut shell, there was no worthwhile allegation raised in the complaint, in the sworn statement or in the documents produced along with the complaint. The learned Magistrate was in gross error in issuing process. Sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner is not revealed from a detailed and holistic reading of the complaint, the sworn statement and the documents. The conclusion appears to me to be inevitable that the cognizance taken is bad in law and the same must be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Permitting continuance of the complaint, I am satisfied, will certainly amount to abuse of process of the court. It will result in failure and miscarriage of justice. Crl.M.C.No. 3257 of 2006 4 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. C.C.1472 of 2005 registered at the JFMC-I, Alwaye against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the second respondent/complainant is hereby quashed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm