IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 819 of 2005()
1. C.K. CHANDRAN, S/O. CHAMPARA KOCHAKKAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADVOCATE THOMAS UNNIYADAN, M.L.A.,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN RALPH
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :17/03/2009
O R D E R
M.C. HARI RANI, J.
======================
CRL.M.C.NO. 819 of 2005
=======================
Dated this the 17th day of March 2009
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition is the sole accused in
S.T.No.8009/2004 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Irinjalakuda and this petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure-A1 complaint
filed by the first respondent against him which was taken
cognizance by the learned Magistrate and is pending before that
court alleging commission of the offence under Sections 499, 500
and 501 of I.P.C.
2. The statement of facts as alleged in this petition are as
follows:- The petitioner is the political worker and the Area
Committee Secretary of CPI(M)Irinjalakuda and also a member of
Thrissur District Committee of C.P.I(M). He was implicated as the
sole accused in S.T.No.8009/2004 pending before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda which was taken on file
CRMC.819/2005 -2-
on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent
herein on 10-12-2004 alleging commission of the offence
punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal
Code. Copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure-A1. After
the receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate recorded sworn
statement of the first respondent/complainant and took
cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501
of the Indian Penal Code and issued process to the accused to
appear on 23-4-2005 before that court. The petitioner/accused
approached this Court by filing this petition on 24-2-2005 with
the prayer to quash Annexure-A1 complaint and also the
proceedings against him in the above mentioned case.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the first respondent.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner and the first respondent are politically opposite
parties. The first respondent herein,who is the M.L.A.of
Irinjalakuda constituency and a leader of Kerala Congress(M) has
CRMC.819/2005 -3-
alleged in Annexure-AI complaint that the petitioner conducted a
press conference on 23-11-2004 at the Press Club, Irinjalakuda
and stated as follows:
” K.L.D.C.
. . . .”
Annexure-II is produced along with this petition which is copy of
the news item published in Kerala Kaumudi, Malayalam daily
dated 24-11-2004, which according to the 1strespondent was
published on the basis of the above statement made by the
petitioner in the press conference. Annexure-A-III is also
produced as the true copy of the news item in Mathrubhumi daily
dated 26-11-2004. Annexure-A-IV is another copy of the news
item published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 29-9-2004
and Annexure-A-V is the true copy of the news item published in
Deshabhimani daily dated 30-9-2004. Annexures A-II to A-V
also contain the defamatory statements which were mentioned in
Annexure-A1 complaint. According to the 1st respondent, in the
press conference conducted by the petitioner on 23-11-2004 at
CRMC.819/2005 -4-
the Press Club, Irinjalakuda he had stated the above mentioned
statements are incorrect, which according to the 1st respondent
was defamatory and made with the intention to lower his
reputation among the public. Thus the petitioner herein has
committed offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the
Indian Penal Code.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there was political vengeance to the first respondent and due to
that vengeance the present complaint has been filed by him
without any bona fides against the petitioner and that the
statements made by the petitioner in the press conference as
narrated in Annexure-A1 complaint even take it as conceded, it
is not defamatory as such and it should not have been taken
cognizance by the learned Magistrate. It is also argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that no sufficient allegations
are there in the complaint to connect the petitioner herein to the
alleged offence. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of
the case without considering the facts and due to non-application
CRMC.819/2005 -5-
of mind. Therefore, the complainant/1strespondent has
unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to face the criminal trial in
S.T.No.8009/2004 and Annexure-A1 complaint against the
petitioner is an abuse of process of the court and is liable to be
quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the first respondent has
submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he
made the above-mentioned statements in the press conference
conducted by him on 23-11-2004 as mentioned in Annexure-A1
complaint preferred by the first respondent herein. The learned
Magistrate on receipt of Annexure-A1 complaint recorded the
sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the
case as S.T.No.8009/2004 and ordered to issue summons to the
petitioner herein. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get
protection under any of the exceptions more particularly
exceptions 1 to 3 of Section 499 of I.P.C. as argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner has to be decided by the
learned Magistrate on the basis of evidence to be let in by the
CRMC.819/2005 -6-
parties at the time of trial. So no interference is required at this
stage by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it
is submitted.
7. Section 499 of I.P.C.reads as follows:
“499. Defamation,-whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing
or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in
the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that
person”.
Exceptions 1 to 3 of Section 499 of I.P.C.read as follows:
First exception-Imputation of truth which public
good requires to be made or published,- It is not
defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good that
the imputation should be made or published. Whether
CRMC.819/2005 -7-
or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception,- Public conduct of public
servants,- It is not defamation to express in a good
faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant in the discharge of his public
functions, or respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third exception,-Conduct of any person touching
any public question,-It is not defamation to
express in good faith any opinion whatever
respecting the conduct of any person touching any
public question, and respecting his character, so far
as his character appears in that conduct, and no
further.
8. In the light of the provisions contained in Section 499 of
the I.P.C. as above mentioned, the important aspect to be
examined is whether the allegations in Annexure-A1 complaint,
prima facie, makes out the offence of defamation against the
CRMC.819/2005 -8-
petitioner.
9. The allegations against the petitioner in Annexure-A1
complaint is that he conducted a press conference on 23-11-2004
at the Press Club, Irinjalakuda and stated as follows:
“K.L.D.C.
. . . .”
It is further alleged that this statement was published in Kerala
Kaumudi Malayalam daily on 24-11-2004 under the caption
” . ..
. . .. .”
10. Identical news items had been published in other
newspapers like Mathrubhumi daily dated 26-11-2004,
Deshabhimani, Deepika etc.and the same were published
pursuant to the statements made by the petitioner in the press
conference. Copies of the above mentioned news items were
produced as Annexures-II to V along with this petition.
11. In order to attract the offence under Section 499 of
I.P.C., the offender must intend to harm the reputation of the
victim amongst public or must do the culpable act with the
CRMC.819/2005 -9-
contumacious knowledge and belief and that such harm would
result the reputation of the aggrieved complainant. All those
matters can only be decided by the trial court on the basis of the
evidence to be adduced on the prosecution side and evidence on
the defence side if any. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get
the protection of any of the exception of Section 499 as argued
by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided by the
learned Magistrate considering the evidence to be adduced by
either side. Whether the above statements mentioned in
Annexure-A1 complaint has been made by the petitioner in good
faith or in the interest of the public etc. can only be decided on
the basis of the evidence to be let in by the parties.
12. In this petition filed by the petitioner before this
Court, who is the sole accused in the above crime, I find no
sufficient ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this court as
envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which can be exercised
only sparingly and with abundant caution. In such
circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-A1
CRMC.819/2005 -10-
complaint which was already taken cognizance by the learned
magistrate and is pending before that court as
S.T.No.8009/2004. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Crl.M.C.is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.