IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2364 of 2009()
1. SUBHAS P.P., AGED 48, S/O.PARAN,
... Petitioner
2. ASHRAF, AGED 44, S/O.KHADAR,
3. DAMODHARAN, AGED 56, S/O.MAMAN,
4. P.A.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51,
Vs
1. SUHAS, AGED 40, S/O.CHANDRAHASAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.2364 OF 2009 (C)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1736 of 2008
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur. The
above case arose on a complaint filed before that court by the
1st respondent imputing that the petitioners/accused had
defamed him by publishing a notice containing defamatory
statement and thus they have committed the offences punishable
under Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The court below took cognizance of the offence as
above, summoned the petitioners, and the proceedings thereof
are now in progress. Petitioners had approached with the above
petition contending that the complaint does not reveal any
offence under Section 499 of the IPC, and as such, the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.1736 of 2008 on the file of the court
below is illegal and abuse of its process, and if the proceedings
CRL.M.C.2364/09 2
are continued, it will be against the ends of justice. Petitioners
have therefore sought for quashing the above criminal
proceedings against them invoking the inherent jurisdiction
vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and also the
1st respondent/complainant and the Public Prosecutor. From the
submissions made at the time of hearing and also perusing the
annexures produced, it is evident that the publication and notice
had been made making some aspersions against the 1st
respondent/complainant in relation to some disputes over the
reclamation of some paddy land and obstructions to a water
course allegedly running through the property of the
complainant. Admittedly, over such disputes, there were
proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also writ
petitions before this Court between the parties. Annexure-IV is
the notice published by the 1st petitioner on behalf of a
Kolpadavu Committee, which is styled as a ‘protest notice’ and
some statements made in such notice against the petitioners are
CRL.M.C.2364/09 3
stated to be defamatory, and that has given rise to Annexure-VI
complaint. Perusing Annexure-VI complaint, it is seen, styling of
the 2nd respondent/complainant and his father in the notice as
‘kapada aasamikal’ ( ) with a further statement that
the public should take note of them as such, form the very basis
of complaint to impute that by publishing such notice, the
petitioners had defamed the complainant and committed the
offences alleged. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners pointing out that the word ‘aasamy’ in common
parlance only means “astute, cunning, pawky” contended that it
cannot be considered as defamatory at all. Fairly conceding that
the word ‘aasamy’ as such could not be considered as
defamatory, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however,
contended that it was prefixed by ‘kapada’ and that would
indicate that the petitioners had intentionally used such terms in
the notice to defame the 2nd respondent and his father before the
general public. Though some other imputations are also imputed
in the Annexure-IV notice against the 2nd respondent/
complainant and his father as to their highhandedness in
CRL.M.C.2364/09 4
threatening the members of the Kolpadavu Committee and of
removing a board put up that the filling of paddy lands is
prohibited, as indicated earlier, Annexure-VI complaint is based
only over the use of the terms “kapada aasamikal” against the
complainant and his father as defaming them and not over any
other aspersions in such notice. So much so, whether such
usage in the notice published by the Kolpadavu Committee
through its Secretary, the 1st petitioner, in the backdrop of the
circumstances presented, namely disputes over the reclaiming of
paddy land as between a Kolpadavu Committee and the
complainant, who is alleged by the committee as having filling up
his land and blocked the water course to the paddy land,
whatever be the truth or merit of such allegations, require to be
looked into whether the criminal proceedings launched against
the petitioners need be continued to advance the ends of justice.
The offence of defamation necessarily demands proof that the
imputation or accusation made by the offender had been done
with intend to have or that he knew or had reason to believe that
thereby he would harm the reputation of the other person. An
CRL.M.C.2364/09 5
imputation or accusation simplicitor without proof of requisite
intention, knowledge or belief that it would harm the reputation
of the person concerned, would not constitute the offence of
defamation. The word ‘aasamy’ ( ) ordinary means only
shrewd, skilful etc. In the notice, some more emphasis is given
to that word by adding ‘kapada’, which indicates false. In the
backdrop of the surrounding circumstances presented in the
case, some disputes persisting between the parties over the
alleged obstructions caused over a water course running through
the property of the complainant to the paddy land, it is evident in
the emotionally energised atmosphere for the common cause of
the public, the owners of the paddy land as a whole published
the notice. Solely for the reason that the word ‘kapada’ was
included before the term ‘aasamikal’, it cannot be stated that the
petitioners, the members of the Kolpadavu Committee, had
intention to defame the 2nd respondent/complainant before the
public. There is nothing to indicate that the publication and
notice was done with any malevolent motive or with mala fide
intention to cause aspersion or to expose the complainant/the 2nd
CRL.M.C.2364/09 6
respondent to ridicule and harm his reputation. In the given
facts of the case, I find that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to sheer
wastage of time and an abuse of process of court. The entire
proceedings in C.C.No.1736 of 2008 on the file of the JFCM-I,
Thrissur, emanating form its complaint, is quashed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
CRL.M.C.2364/09 7