IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1186 of 2009()
1. THOMAS JOSEPH,AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ANIL P.PAVITHRAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
3. K.P.ULAHANNAN,AGED 55 YEARS,
4. MONCY JAISON, AGED 28 YEARS,
5. REMI GEORGE,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE,
6. K.J.PAUL, AGED 55 YEARS,KOKKANDATHIL
7. JOSEPH JOSEPH @ JOSEPH P.J.
Vs
1. CHERIACHAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJAYAN MANNALY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
====================
Crl.M.C. No. 1186 of 2009-E
====================
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009.
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 1, 10, 25, 26, 29, 31 and 33 in
C.C.No.918/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha. First respondent is the
complainant. He filed Annexure A1 complaint against 56
accused alleging that they committed offences under
Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. After recording
the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses,
Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and issued summons. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
Annexure A1 complaint contending that it is only an abuse
of process of the Court.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
and first respondent were heard.
Crl.M.C.No.1186/2009-E
-2-
3. Annexure A1 complaint and the cognizance taken
can be quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure only if the averments in the complaint and sworn
statements read together do not constitute the offence
alleged against the petitioners. Arguments of learned
Counsel is that the sworn statements of first respondent and
his witnesses do not disclose any publication, which is the
most essential ingredient of an offence of defamation and
therefore no offence is made out and for that reason
Annexure A1 and the case are to be quashed. Learned
Counsel appearing for first respondent pointed out that
necessary allegations to constitute the offence are there in
Annexure A1 with regard to the publication and the
complaint and sworn statements can only be read together
and so the petition is to be dismissed. On going through
Annexure A1 complaint, it cannot be said that ingredients of
an offence under Section 500 is not disclosed. If those
allegations are to be taken accepted in their entirety, it
Crl.M.C.No.1186/2009-E
-3-
cannot be said that offence is not made out. The question
whether the allegations could be accepted or not cannot be
decided at this stage. It can only be decided at the time of
trial on the evidence to be recorded. Hence on the grounds
alleged, it cannot be quashed at the threshold. The petition
is therefore dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
dkr