IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 209 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.227/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MINI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.HARIDASAN, PARAPPUR HOUSE, ARIKKANDAMPALLIL, THACHINGANATAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. ACHUTHAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMALU AMMA, -DO-. 3. HARIDASAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADV.USMAN KURIKKAL O.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYA KUNJUMUTHY KURIKKAL HAJI, KURIKKAL HOUSE, V.I.P.ROAD, MANCHERI COLLEGE ROAD P.O., MALAPPURAM. MANAGER, THACHINGANDOM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANDOM P.O. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.209 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and they face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused, who is a teacher in a school run by the complainant, had in a speech made by her, made perse defamatory imputations which were telecast in a local T.V channel resulting in defamation to the complainant. The 2nd and 3rd accused are the father in law and husband respectively of the 1st accused. 2. The crux of the allegations is that all the 3 accused in furtherance of their common intention and to defame the complainant, the 1st accused made defamatory imputations against the complainant in a speech made by her. 3. Cognizance has already been taken. The petitioners have already appeared before the learned Magistrate and they have been enlarged on bail. 4. The matter was discussed in detail at the Bar. There is a contention that the allegations raised are false. Whether the allegations are false or not cannot obviously be decided by this Court at this stage with the available inputs. Crl.M.C. No.209 of 2009 2 5. The next contention is that the allegations are not defamatory and the 1st petitioner had only attempted to explain an earlier order passed by the Women's Commission. The benefit or advantage of exemption 4 is claimed. I have been taken through the complaint. The allegations revealed are perse defamatory allegations and I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the contention that the complaint must be quashed on the ground that the allegations are not defamatory or that the petitioners are not alleged to have the necessary contumacious intention to defame the complainant. 6. Counsel further contends that as against accused 2 and 3, there is only an allegation of sharing of common intention and there is no sufficient material to implead the 2nd and 3rd accused. Only blanket assertions about the common intention are vaguely made, it is submitted. I find merit in that contention. The said contention deserves to be considered in detail. 7. In any case, I am of opinion that the proceedings against the 1st accused will have to continue. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in these circumstances, submits that the interests of the petitioners shall be served eminently if this Court would to direct expeditious disposal of the prosecution Crl.M.C. No.209 of 2009 3 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and a further direction that the petitioners shall be entitled to apply for exemption from personal appearance. 8. I am satisfied that the said directions can be given. In these circumstances, as agreed, this Crl.M.C can be dismissed with specific directions. 9. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed; b) But it is specifically observed that the petitioner's application for exemption must be considered by the learned Magistrate and expeditious orders passed. Unless the progress of the case compellingly demand the physical presence of the petitioners, their physical presence need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate; c) The learned Magistrate must ensure that the case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 4 months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. 10. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-