Partly allowed

Dr.M.K.Muneer,Chairman,Indiavision Satel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2008Crl.MC/1583/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clubbed multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging a defamation complaint. It held the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without enquiring whether the complaint was a maligned attempt by aggrieved parents against a human rights activist. The proceedings were set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to hold an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. demanding transcripts.

What did the court decide?

The order taking cognizance was set aside against accused 1, 2, and 5 to 14. The Magistrate was directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., obtain transcripts, and consider setting aside

Dr.M.K.Muneer,Chairman,Indiavision… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1583 of 2005()

¶6

------------------------CC.808/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.8:

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

DR. M.K. MUNEER, CHAIRMAN, INDIAVISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD., 32/1787, 6TH FLOOR, TUTUS TOWER, PADIVATTOM, N.H. BYE-PASS ROAD, KOCHI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT:STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU - R1 ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN FOR R2 SRI.JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL(R-2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1612 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

V.GIRI, J.

¶19

CR.M.C.No.1583, 1612, 1621

¶20

1624 , 1635 & 1636 of 2005

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2008 .

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

All these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure essentially involve the same issue. Therefore, they were directed to be clubbed together. Accordingly, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is advantageous to refer to the facts involved in Crl.M.C.No.1624/05, as directions that could be issued in the said case, to a great extent, would comprehend the contentions taken up by the petitioners in the other cases also.

¶24

The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1624/05 are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.808/05 pending on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Ernakulam. The calender case arose out of a complaint filed against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1624/05 and 12 others alleging that they have committed the offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure A1 is the complaint filed in this regard.

¶25

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶26

The gist of the allegations contained in Annexure A1 is to the following effect:

¶27

On 26^th March, 2004, accused 3 and 4, with accused 1 and 2, being the parents of late Sister Abhaya conducted a press conference. The details of the press conference was reported in a news item which was carried by different news papers and the publication as was made in the New Indian Express may be referred to at this juncture. The same is produced as Annexure I along with Crl.M.C.No.1636/05 filed by the 5^th accused, who is the Printer and Publisher of the New Indian Express, Kaloor, Kochi. It is stated therein that the parents of Sister Abhaya, who died under mysterious circumstances 12 years ago, is now witnessing a villain in their former saviour Jomon Puthenpurackal, viewed as a Human Rights Activist over the years beginning with his untiring efforts to keep the case under public watch. It further goes on to say that accused 1 and 2 alleged in the press conference that Jomon Puthenpurackal had been collecting lakhs of rupees in the name of Sister Abhaya, mostly from NRIs; that Thomas pleaded with all, who had given

¶28

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶29

money to Jomon to send him the details so that action could be initiated. 1^st accused is quoted as having said: “He needn't shed any tear for our daughter”. While the lawyer engaged in the case had taken Rs.800/- so far, Jomon had amassed lakhs of rupees. The news item thereafter makes reference to certain statements made by accused 3 and 4 also. The news item further carried a statement that Jomon Puthenpurackal has refuted all the allegations and said that he had sacrificed his life for Sister Abhaya's cause and those who have levelled allegations has a responsibility to prove the same.

¶30

Apparently, the statements made in the press conference by accused 1 and 2 along with accused 3 and 4 were published in print and visual media. The complaint alleges that statements, as indicated above, were published by accused 5 to 7. Accused 5 to 7 are the representatives of the New Indian Express. It then alleges that accused 8, 9 and 10, who are the Chairman, Executive Editor and Reporter of India Vision caused a telecast to be made through out the day of 27^th March, 2004, alleging that the

¶31

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶32

complainant has committed financial fraud under the pretext of conducting Sister Abhaya's case. It is then alleged that on 26^th March, 2004, at 9 PM in the news hour programme M/s.Asianet Private Limited, of which accused 11, 12 and 13 are the Chairman, Editor and Reporter telecast the participation of the accused and that the 1^st accused had made statements therein that the complainant had committed a financial fraud in conducting Abhaya case and also while offering to take accused 3 and 4 abroad, he committed a fraud involving procurement of Visa as well. The contention of the complainant is that accused 1 to 4 made allegations and imputations which are palpably false and false to the knowledge of the accused, but yet, they have caused it to be published and telecast with the object of bringing into ridicule and lower him in the estimation of others as such. The alleged publication was made on 26.3.2004 and 27.3.2004. The complaint was filed on 24.3.2005, almost an year later. Though the complaint as such cannot be considered as barred by limitation, nevertheless, this also is a matter which assumes

¶33

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶34

significance. Along with the complaint he has produced a list of documents which contains lawyer's notice and separate reply notices sent by accused 1 to 4, accused 5 to 7, accused 8 to 10 and accused 11 to 14.

¶35

None of the accused are staying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Ernakulam. The complainant also gives his residential address as “Puthenpurackal, Neendoor P.O., in Kottayam District. But apparently, the complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam on the premise that by reason of the aforesaid publication, the complainant has actually been defamed; that after reading the newspaper and viewing the telecast by the accused, number of persons had contacted the complainant and expressed opinion that they never knew that the complainant was such a man of loathsome character. Reference is made to K.V.Sathyapalan, S/o. Velayudhan, residing at Kottukal House, Ayyappan Kavu, Thrikanarvattom, Desom, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Village, Ernakulam District and Joy Kaitharath, Son of

¶36

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶37

:: 6 ::

¶38

Antony Monody Desom, Vellikulangara Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. Apparently it is the residence of Sathyapalan within the jurisdiction of Magistrate's Court at Ernakulam which is shown as the place where the cause of action has arisen, for filing the complaint before the learned magistrate at Ernakulam. I will make a reference to this aspect at a later stage.

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1624/05, as stated above, has been filed by accused 1 and 2, the parents of Sister Abhaya. The other Crl.M.Cs have been filed by the Printers and Publishers or persons stated to be responsible for the telecast of the news item carrying the details of the press conference held or responsible for the telecast of the programme in which the allegations were made by the father and mother of Sister Abhaya. Essentially, in one sense, the question as to whether the publishers of the news papers or the persons responsible for the telecast of programme in the visual media should also be proceeded against, to some extent, would depend upon whether it was right on the part of the learned

¶40

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶41

magistrate to have issued process against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1624/05 namely accused 1 and 2 [father and mother of Sister Abhaya]. If the learned magistrate could have possibly come to the conclusion that there are no materials to proceed against accused 1 and 2, then obviously the learned magistrate should not have issued process against the other accused as well. Even assuming that the learned magistrate had material to proceed against accused 1 and 2, the court should independently consider whether it is justifiable to proceed against the other accused viz., accused 5 to 14 as well. But, it will be advantageous to refer to the contentions raised by Mr.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1624/05.

¶42

It is contended that going by the statements stated to have been made by accused 1 and 2 in the press conference, there is no imputation which will be comprehended by Section 499 of the IPC. It is further contended that at any rate, even if there has been an imputation against the integrity and reputation of the complainant, the same would come under the 9^th

¶43

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶44

exception to Section 499 IPC, that the entire incident seems centered around the conduct of the case involving the death of Sister Abhaya and after all accused 1 and 2 can legitimately say that nobody could be more aggrieved by the death of Sister Abhaya then her parents. If therefore, the parents of the deceased felt that some other person is trying to hijack the conduct of the case and it has nothing to do with the proper conduct of the case or with an intention to bring the truth to light, then they have a responsibility to prove that such persons do not use the case as vehicles for their personal gratification. Mr.Varghese contended that it is only with the said view that the parents of Sister Abhaya thought it fit to hold a press conference and come out with a statement which they felt it to be true; that they said that they do not want the assistance of Jomon Puthenpurackal; that he has been receiving money from several persons under the pretext of conducting the case relating to the death of Sister Abhaya. Reference is made to the fact that the lawyer, who has been representing

¶45

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶46

accused 1 and 2 before different Fora, have apparently been receiving a paltry sum of Rs.800/-, whereas a busy body, in the estimation of accused 1 and 2, like the complainant has been amazing great wealth. They, therefore, thought it fit to bring these perspectives to the public so that there cannot be a repetition of what they perceive as 'a dishonest conduct on the part of the complainant'. Mr.Varghese further contended that the learned magistrate should have looked at the contents of the alleged defamatory publication, gone through the notice and reply notice and then applied his mind before deciding to issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶47

It may be noted, at this juncture, that though the complainant before the court below has been served from this court, there is no appearance on his behalf. Advocate P.K.Asokan was earlier representing him. Asokan is no more and his daughter Dhanya Asokan, who is also an advocate practising in this court, had made submissions before me that P.K.Asokan had actually relinquished vakalath of the complainant

¶48

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶49

much earlier. Suffice it to say that the complainant is not represented before this court.

¶50

Coming to the contentions of Sri.Varghese, I find considerable force in the same.

¶51

Section 202 of the Code empowers the learned magistrate, before whom a complaint is presented, to postpone the issue of process. Any magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, which he is authorised to take cognizance of or which has been made over to him, may postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such person, as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. No doubt, elaborate reasons need not be given by the learned magistrate before deciding to issue process. But, obviously, all the complaints cannot be subjected to the same process by any magistrate. In a case of the present nature, where accused 1 and 2, who are none other than the parents of deceased Sister Abhaya, the complainant himself asserts that he

¶52

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶53

:: 11 ::

¶54

is a Human Rights Activist” and has been in the forefront championing the cause of others, and is aggrieved by what is termed as a 'tardy investigation' into the death of Sister Abhaya, the Magistrate should have taken note of the fact that the allegations made by the complainant are undisputedly against none other than the parents of Sister Abhaya. This should have persuaded the learned magistrate to conduct necessary investigation before deciding to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate, no doubt, has a power to do so and in the circumstances the power is coupled with a duty.

¶55

There is yet another factor which should have been taken note of by the learned magistrate. The alleged defamatory publication was made on 26.3.2004. The complaint was filed on 21.3.2005. Apparently the advocate's notice to the accused was issued only on 19.7.2004 and reply notices were issued immediately thereafter in August, 2004. The complainant waited for another 6 months before lodging the complaint. So, it is a case where he was sleeping over the cause and was not diligent in prosecuting the

¶56

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶57

matter. In my view, this is also an aspect which should have been taken note of by the learned magistrate at least for the purpose of deciding whether it is necessary to proceed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶58

As I stated above, the first and foremost aspect which should have been taken note of by the learned magistrate is the fact that the alleged defamatory statement is made, according to the complainant, by none other than the parents of Sister Abhaya, who indisputably are the most aggrieved by the untimely death of their daughter. The learned magistrate should not have lightly proceeded with, by taking cognizance of a complaint alleging an offence under Section 499 IPC as against them. A reading of the statement made in the press conference suggests that the parents of the deceased said that, according to them, the complainant has been amassing wealth under the pretext of conducting the case of Sister Abhaya. If therefore the parents of deceased have gathered an impression that the complainant is trying to hijack the case and this would detrimentally affect the conduct of the

¶59

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶60

case, they might be compelled to come out with such a statement in public. The court should carefully scrutinize the publications and then decide whether it is necessary or justified in proceeding against such persons who themselves are extremely aggrieved by the loss of their daughter. In the nature of the directions, which I propose to issue, I do not intend to express any final opinion as to whether the complaint should be proceeded with or not or whether no offence as such has been made out against the accused. All that is needed is to stress that the learned magistrate should have been more circumspect in proceeding with the complaint of the present nature, and should have, therefore, conducted an enquiry as is contemplated under Section 202 before deciding to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶61

In my view, the order passed by the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint as against accused 1 and 2 is not sustainable. In my further view, the learned magistrate should conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C before

¶62

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶63

proceeding further in the matter.

¶64

It is contended by Mrs.Ranjini, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1621 and 1583/05 that the petitioners are only responsible for the telecast of the news item involving the press conference held by accused 1 and 2 really and therefore, they need not be dragged to the Court in a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1636/05 Ms.Vijayamma further contended that holding of a press conference and publication of a news item related to the telecast of a programme in the electronic media are clubbed together in one complaint and this itself should have been taken note of by the learned magistrate. Similar contentions are raised by the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1635/05 as well.

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that insofar as the allegation against the persons responsible for the telecast of programmes in India Vision and Asianet are concerned. Some materials containing the programme where the alleged defamatory statement

¶66

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶67

has been made should have been produced along with the complaint and in the absence of the same, there was no material before the learned magistrate to conclude that the Chairman, Executive Editor and Reporter of India Vision, accused 8 to 10 and Chairman and Managing Editor and President and Chief News Editor of Asianet are also liable to be proceeded against for the offence under Section 500 IPC. I find considerable force in this submission. If the Chairman and the News Editor of the TV Channel is alleged to have committed the offence of defamation, not by reason of having raised allegations against the complainant, but on the premise that the programmes which are carried in their TV Channel also made a reference to the alleged defamatory statements made by accused 1 and 2 in the press conference, then the transcript of the alleged defamatory statement should be produced in a discernible form along with the complaint so as to enable the learned magistrate to scan the same and then take necessary action to see whether it is necessary to proceed with the complaint under Section 204

¶68

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶69

Cr.P.C. A mere allegation in the circumstances will not suffice. The learned magistrate definitely has jurisdiction, in the course of an enquiry into the case by himself to require the complainant to make available the necessary documents, to enable the learned magistrate to satisfy himself that it is necessary to further proceed with the case or in the alternative, direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer, as he deems fit, for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter. This aspect of the matter also seems to have escaped the notice of the learned magistrate.

¶70

There is an additional contention in Crl.M.C.No.1636/05, which is filed by the publisher of New Indian Express, 5^th accused. It is pointed out that all that is contained in Annexure I news item is the verbatim reproduction of what happened in the press conference and the news editor has not made any additions in the news items. He has faithfully reproduced what has been stated by accused 1 and 2. But

¶71

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶72

:: 17 ::

¶73

significantly, the news item also carried the denial of the complainant as regards the allegations levelled against accused 1 and 2.

¶74

I find considerable force in this submission. In fact, Annexure 3 is reportedly stated to have been made by the complainant and this was published in the New Indian Express, Sunday Edition dated 20.11.2005.

¶75

For all the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint as against accused 1 and 2 and accused 5 to 14 requires to be interfered with.

¶76

In the result, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed in part. The proceedings of the learned magistrate by which cognizance has been taken against accused 1 and 2 and accused 5 to 14 in C.C.No.808/05 is set aside. The learned

¶77

magistrate shall conduct an enquiry or cause an investigation to be made as contemplated by section 202 Cr.P.C., firstly into:

¶78

(1) Whether it would be appropriate to proceed against 1 and 2 for an offence under section 499 IPC on the basis of the statement alleged to have been made by them in the press

¶79

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶80

:: 18 ::

¶81

conference held on 26.3.2004 and referred to specifically in the complaint, taking note of the fact that they are the father and mother of deceased Sister Abhaya and the allegations which are sourced to them intrinsically involve the death of Sister Abhaya.

¶82

2. The learned magistrate shall be entitled to call upon the complainant to produce such further evidence as is necessary including the transcript of the entire press conference and any material which he has issued in rebuttal of the same before deciding to issue process under section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶83

3. If the learned magistrate is of the opinion, after completion of the appropriate enquiry or investigation, as the case may be, that sufficient grounds have been made out for proceeding against accused 1 and 2, then he shall give reasons in support of his satisfaction thereto.

¶84

4. If the learned magistrate comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to proceeding against accused 1 and 2, he shall record his reasons for doing so and in such circumstances, he shall not proceed against the other accused also.

¶85

5. The learned magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce the materials where under the alleged defamatory statements involving the complainant has been made in

¶86

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶87

:: 19 ::

¶88

the TV programmes separately telecast by M/s.India Vision and M/s.Asianet and only if such materials, by way of visual transcripts are made available to the court, then the learned magistrate shall decide to proceed with the instant complaint. It is made clear that if the complainant is not in a position to do so, then it would not be open to the learned magistrate to proceed against accused 8 to 10 on one hand and accused 11 to 14 on the other, in the instant complaint.

¶89

6. The aforementioned procedure shall be treated, either as part of the enquiry which the magistrate will have to conduct under Section 202(1), or part of the investigation, which he may direct to be made by a police officer or by such other person, for the purpose of deciding whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint.

¶90

¶91

Even if the learned magistrate ultimately comes to the conclusion that there are grounds for proceeding against accused 1 and 2, he shall independently consider whether the publication in the New Indian Express was only a faithful reporting of the press conference held by accused 1 and 2. If he finds in the affirmative, then he shall not further proceed with the complaint, insofar as accused 5, 6 and 7 are concerned.

¶92

CR.M.C.No.1583 of 2005 & con. cases

¶93

Crl.M.Cs are disposed of with the above

¶94

directions.

¶95

Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE

¶96

sk/

¶97

//true copy//

Dr.M.K.Muneer,Chairman,Indiavision Satel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.K.Muneer,Chairman,Indiavision Satel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs M/S.Anupam Textiles

Sunil Nath Vs K.G.Haridas

Jose Stephen Vs Nazeema Hameed

Kasinathan Vs the Circle Inspector

M/S.Kasargod Self Employees Financing Vs State of Kerala

Balachandran Nair Vs Purushothaman and Another