IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3750 of 2003()
1. RAMAKRISHNAN MALAYATH @ R.K. MALAYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3750 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him
in CC.No.352/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nilambur.
2. It appears that Nilambur Police had registered Crime
No.492/2000 (Annexure II) on the basis of Annexure I complaint
lodged by additional respondent No.2 herein. In Annexure II First
Information Report the Police had incorporated offences punishable
under Sections 500, 506(1) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the petitioner the Police had completed the
investigation and laid Annexure III charge alleging commission of
the above offences.
3. But learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to a
report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police dated July 25, 2002
deleting the charge under Section 500 IPC. He submits that
pursuant to the report , the court had directed the petitioner to face
charge under Section 506(1) and 294(b) IPC only.
4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether
the prayer made by the petitioner to quash the above proceedings
pending against him is legally valid and sustainable.
5. In Annexure I complaint, the complainant (additional
respondent No.2) alleged that on October 12, 2000, a copy of a
Crl.MC.3750/2003. 2
magazine called Palco Crime had been received at his tharwad house
by post, containing an article imputing immoral activities about his
younger brother Sri.Gopinath, who is a famous magician. The article
contained certain defamatory and derogatory statements against
Sri.Gopinath alleging that he had been having illicit relationship with
the women artists in his troop and that he had been presenting those
lady artists before some important personalities. The complainant
further alleged that he had come to know that photocopies of the above
article were being sent by post to several other people and that he
suspected that the accused was doing so.
6. It was further alleged that on the same day viz., October 12,
2000 at about 1 p.m. the accused had telephoned and enquired whether
he had received a copy of the magazine. Further, the accused had
allegedly informed the complainant that he had got thousands of
photocopies of the above article with him and that he would be
distributing them among the public in order to defame his younger
brother Gopinath. The further allegation in the complaint was that on
the same day in the evening while he and one Kavalamukkattayil
Premarajan had met the accused and talked about the matter, the
accused had used filthy language against him.
7. It is contended by Sri.Alan Pappali, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the charge laid by the Police before the court on the
basis of the above complaint is clearly an abuse of process. He submits
that Annexure I complaint did not reveal any offence much less those
under Sections 506(1) and 294(b) IPC. The complainant did not
disclose what were the abusive words used by the accused against the
Crl.MC.3750/2003. 3
complainant. Similarly the allegation that the accused had telephoned
and threatened the complainant is also totally vague and non specific.
It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the main allegation in
the complaint was that the complainant suspected that it was the
accused who was behind the distribution of copies of the alleged
defamatory articles against his younger brother. As rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel his younger brother viz., Sri.Gopinath who was
targeted in the article in question had not chosen to lodge a complaint
against the accused. The vague assertion made by the complainant that
the entire family of the complainant had been defamed through the
article is not sufficient to incriminate the petitioner in the case.
8. I find considerable force in the above contentions raised by the
petitioner. Though respondent No.2 had been served with notice, he
has not appeared either in person or through counsel. Nevertheless I
have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. I have
also gone through the Case Diary made available by the learned Govt.
Pleader.
9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I find
no justification in allowing the proceedings pending against the
petitioner to continue. In my view, the above proceeding is a clear
abuse of process. Therefore the proceedings pending in
CC.No.352/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nilambur are quashed.
Crl.M.C is allowed.
A.K. Basheer
an. Judge.