Quashed

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat v. T.a.Ismail

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012Crl.MC/212/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case addresses the maintainability of a criminal complaint jointly filed by three persons under Section 499 IPC for defamation. The Court held that a joint complaint by multiple persons is not maintainable. It quashed the proceedings but clarified that any of the complainants can file a fresh complaint individually regarding the same cause of action, provided no legal impedimen

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.T.No.1144/2005 were quashed. It was clarified that a fresh complaint can be filed by any of the persons individually regarding the same cause of

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat Vs T.a.Ismail — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 212 of 2007 ( )

¶6

ST.1144/2005 of J.M.F.C., CHANGANACHERRY

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :-

¶8

1. CHANGANACHERRY PAZHAYAPALLI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT S.M.FUAD, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SHOUKATH ALI KOHINOOR HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶9

2. THE SECRETARY, E.A.BASHEER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN KUTTY, BANK STREET VALASHERRY, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID

¶11

SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMMED SHEMEEM SRI.T.P.SAJID

¶12

RESPONDENTS :-

¶13

1. T.A.ISMAIL, AGED 58 YEARS,

¶14

S/O. AHAMMED KANI RAWTHER, THAIPARAMBIL

¶15

VAMANAPURAM HOUSE, KURISINMOOD, CHETTIPUZHA.

¶16

2. O.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 39 YEARS,

¶17

S/O. MEERAN LABBA, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶18

3. P.N.ANOOP, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶19

S/O.KANI, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUNNA VILLAGE

¶20

CHANGANACHERRY.

¶21

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER FOR R1 TO R3.

¶23

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE V.H.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

jvt

¶26

CRL.M.C.No.212/2007

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

Petitioner's Exhibits :-

¶29

Annexure I :- Copy of the Crl.M.C.No.3364/2002 which was taken cognizance of and re-numbered as s.t.no.1144/2005 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry.

¶30

Annexure II :- Copy of minutes of the meeting dated 26.4.2002 of the Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamaath committee.

¶31

Annexure III :- Copy of marriage application dated 6.6.03 submitted before the Jama-ath by 1^st respondent Ismail for solemnization of the marriage of Rahna Manju on 19.6.03.

¶32

Annexure IV :- Copy of -do dated 23.9.2005 by -do- for solemnization of the marriage of Ahmed Fisal on 20.11.2005.

¶33

Annexure V :- Copy of complaint filed by respondents against the petitioners before Kerala Wakf Board as Petition No.13 dated 25.3.2002.

¶34

Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL.

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

P.A. to Judge

¶37

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.212 of 2007

¶39

Dated this the 13^th day of September 2012

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The accused in S.T.No.1144/2005 of J.F.C.M., Changanacherry are the petitioners. The offence alleged against them is under Sec.499 of IPC.

¶42

It is alleged that the accused who made defamatory statement against three persons, who are shown as the complainants, were not following Islamic faith. It was also alleged that in a speech, one of the accused had made such defamatory statement. There was also a decision to ex-communicate them. (The precise Malayalam word used is 'Ooruvilakku'). It cannot be said that those statements, if proved, are not defamatory. But, the accused may be able to put forward any of the exceptions contained in Sec.499 of IPC to contend that they have not committed any offence. But that is a matter to be decided in the trial.

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.212 of 2007

¶44

-: 2 :-

¶45

The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on a complaint jointly filed by three persons. That is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan [2007 (1) KLT 226 (Mad. H.C.)] and the decision of this Court in C. S. Desai v. B. Paul Abrao [1963 KLT 548] in support of his submission that the joint complaint of two or more persons is not maintainable.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Haridas Naik and Others v. Hanchinamane Gadriyappa and Others [2010 (2) KLD 727 (Kar.)]. There also, it was held that a complaint filed by two or more persons jointly is not maintainable. But, in such a case, it was held that the proper course is to give an opportunity to the complainants to choose as to who among them would continue to

¶47

Crl.M.C. No.212 of 2007

¶48

prosecute the complaint as the complainant. True that, a petition could have been filed before the learned Magistrate to cause amendment to the cause title to choose who among the three can be the complainant. The other two persons could have been cited as witnesses. That was not done.

¶49

Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in S.T.No.1144/2005 on the file of J.F.C.M., Changanacherry is quashed. But, it is made clear that a fresh complaint can be filed by any of the persons in respect of the same cause of action provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶50

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶51

Jvt

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat v. T.a.Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat v. T.a.Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.M.Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Suo Moto Vs M.Dhanudas

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs Sahadevan

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Soman Vs State of Kerala