In a criminal revision petition, a two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court refused to quash defamation proceedings initiated against accused who filed objections to a Below Poverty Line list. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged intent to defame and that substantive defenses like good faith had to be tried on evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/14TH SRAVANA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1027 of 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1149/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED:
1. K.G.VIDYASAGAR,S/O.GOVINDAN, KALARIKKAL VELI, MANNANCHERY PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. K.G.SWATHIKAN,S/O.GOVINDAN, RAJITHA BHAVAN, MANNANCHERY PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1. P.V.JALADHARAN,S/O.VELU,JISHA BHAVAN, MANNANCHERY PO, PIN 686 538, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN R2 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2013 , THE COURT ON 05/08/2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.M.C.No.1027/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX.A: ANNEX.B: |
COPY OF THE EXTRACT FOR THE BPL LIST PUBLISHED BY THE ARYANAD BLOCK PANCHAYATH. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.24333/D.D.3/08/LOCAL SELF GOVT. DTD. 8/04/2008. |
|---|---|
| ANNEX.C: | COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 15/11/2008. |
| ANNEX.D: | COPY OF THE FORM IN WHICH THE OBJECTIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND MARKS WERE AWARDED BY THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER. |
| ANNEX.E: | COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1149/2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, CHERTHALA. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Criminal MC No.1027 of 2010
Dated this, the 5th day of August 2013
Order
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.1149/2009 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, have filed this application to quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of a private complaint field by the first respondent herein, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
is filed without any bona fies. They have not committed any offence. The petitioners are brothers and social workers in their locality. The Government of Keala has a measure to give benefits to the low income people and to categorise those persons, the Government used to prepare a list of persons, who are living below the poverty line (BPL) and persons who are included in the BPL are provided with number of benefits as a measure for their upliftment and to
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 2
promote their standard of life. The BPL list was prepared in the year 2007 and the same was published by Aryanad Block Panchayat in respect of persons living in Ward No.19 of Mannancherry Grama Panchayat. The petitioners are residing in that panchayat. Annexure A is the BPL List so published by Arayanad Block Panchayat and the first respondent is shown as Serial No.86 in the list. There were lot of complaints against the preparation of the list to the effect that number of ineligible persons were included in the list and persons eligible were excluded from the list. The Government of Kerala issued a circular on 8.4.2008 directing all the Panchayats to publish the list again and call for objections if any in respect of the anomalies in the list and after conducting proper enquiry, prepare a fresh list on the basis of the enquiry. The first petitioner, being a social worker, filed objection regarding the same and the copy of the said complaint filed by him is Annexure C. On the basis of Annexure C, the Village Extension Officer, Aryanad Block
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 3
Panchayat conducted an enquiry and a note was prepared by the Village Extension Officer as Annexure D. The fist respondent has got only 25 marks and that makes clear that he is not eligible to be included in the list. Subsequent to the same, the first respondent filed Annexure E complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below has taken cognizance of the case as CC No.1149/2009 and issued summons to the petitioners. The allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to attract the offences under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the allegations made in the complaint filed by the petitioners before the authorities are true to the best of their knowledge and there was no mala fide intention in filing the complaint as alleged in the complaint and they have only filed the complaint pursuant a circular issued by the Government in
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 4
this regard. The present complaint was filed by the first respondent with a view to harass th petitioners and it is an abuse of the process of Court and there is no possibility of any conviction being entered into against the petitioners on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. They prayed for interference by this Court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence th petition.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 5
regard when there were lot of complaints raised regarding the inclusion of persons not eligible for the same and exclusion of persons who are eligible for the same. So, they have done in good faith and so, it is not an offence. Even the allegations in the complaint filed by them cannot be said to be defamatory as they have only narrated the facts within their knowledge. So, according to him, the complaint itself is not maintainable and it is liable to be quashed.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
6
the first respondent before the public as he is having good reputation among the public. So, it is a matter to be decided on evidence and it is not a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
7
quash the proceedings.
Vinodan.T.S. (2009 (3) KHC 477), it has been held that there should be an allegation in the complaint that the words spoken or published were made with an intention to
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 8
harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
9
the complaint if fatal to the prosecution. But, in the same decision, it has been held that the object is to enable the accused to understand and answer the allegations against him. Even in cases of impossibility of reproduction in first person, law insists on a substantial account of the accusations being included in the complaint. Otherwise, the complaint is considered defective.
Moti Ram (1971(3) SCC 399), it has been held that it is highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But, in cases where words spoken are too many or the statements made are long, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. A
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
10
complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statement made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also, it is necessary that the matter alleged to be defamatory int eh complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet. So, it is clear from the above dictum that if the words spoken or published are small matters, then, it is desirable that the same has to be reproduced in the complaint in first person. Further, it is also clear from the above dictum that if the allegations made or published are lengthy, then, insisting the complainant to produce the same in the complaint is not warranted. But, at least the subtractum of the defamatory statement alleged to have been made by the accused must be mentioned in the complaint so as to make the accused understand the accusations made against him so as to enable him to meet the case.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
11
mentioned thus :
''അ(പക�രമ�ര�ക� കപ�ത�ജനങള�ല എന���� മറ�മ�ള സത�ക�ര��യ���� സത��പര�ന�� മനപ�ര�� കളങ� ച�ര�ണകമന�ള ഉ�%ശ���ട �� കര �ത�(�ട�� ക�ട� (പത�കള�കട (പവ*�� മ�(� അ(പക�ര� സ�ഭവ���കമന�ള ഉ�മവ�ശ,�സ���ട�ക�ട�യ�� (പത�കള ഇര �വര�� മനപ�ര�� ക�ട�യ��(�ച�ച� ഉറച� ത�ങള �കട കപ�ത � ഉ�%ശക�ര1സ�ധ1��ന�യ� മണ�4ര� പ4�യ�� 19-)0 വ�ര:�ല ക ��നല കവള� വ�ട�ല ഖദ�ജയ�കടയ�� കളര��ല വ�ട�ല മ�ധവ�യ�കടയ�� കളര��ല വ�ട�ല �ശഖരക>യ�� വ�ഴപന�ട� വ�ട�ല അന�ലക�മ�റ�ക>യ�� മറ�� �പര �കള അനരAമ�യ സ,�ധ�ന��ക> അട�സ�ന��ല കടന �ക�ട�യ�ട�ളത�കണന�� മറ�� ക�ണ�ച�കക�ണ� (പത�കള �ചരന� ബA �മ�നകപട ജ�(�(� കളകര അവരകള� �� ആര1�ട� ബ��ള��� ക:വ(പ�കമ>� ഓഫ�സര� �� രണ�� (പത� ഒന�� (പത�യ�കട അറ��വ�ട�� സമത���ട�ക�ട�യ�� തക>
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
12
കകപടയ�ല കളവ �� കളവ�യ ക�ര1ങള ആകണന�
(പത�കള�� അറ�യ�വ�നത�മ�യ ക�ര1ങള
എഴ�ത��ചര�� വ1�ജമ�യ� പര�ത� തയ�റ��� എകനയ�� മറ�� കപ�ത�ജനമധ1��ല അപക�ര��കപട��ണകമന�ള
ഉ�%ശ���ട��ക�ട�പര�ത��ബ�ധ�പ�ച�ട�ളത��. ................
അ�ന,ഷണ��ക> ഫ(മ�യ� (പത�കള ഇര�വര�� �ചരന� എന���� മറ�� എത�കര കളവ�യ ക�ര1ങള ക�ണ�ച� തയ�റ���യ പര�ത�യ�ക( ക�ര1ങള മനസ�(���ന ഇടയ�യ കപ�ത�ജനങള�കട ഇടയ�( �� എന���� മറ�� ഉണ�യ�ര�ന സത��പര�ന�� സത�ക�ര����� �ക�ട�
തട�നത�ന��ഇടയ�യ�ട�നത�മ�ണ�. ................................
കളവ�യ ക�ര1ങള ആകണന�ള ഉ�മവ�ശ,�സ���ട��
അറ��വ�ട�� ക�ട� ആയവ ബനകപട അധ�ക�ര�കകള
(പത�കള ഇര�വര�� �ചരന� വ1�ജമ�യ� പര�ത� തയ�റ��� അറ�യ�ചത� വഴ�............................................................
(പത�കള ഇര�വര�� �ചരന� എകനയ �� മറ �� കപ�ത�ജനങള�കട ഇടയ�ല (പ�ത1ക�ച� അയല
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 13
വ�സ�കള�കട ഇടയ�ല എന���� മറ�� ഉണ�യ�ര�ന സത��പര�ന�� സത�ക�ര��� �� �ക�ട� തട�നത�ന�� എന���� മറ�� മ�നA�ന� ഉണ�ക�നത�ന� �വണ�യ�� മനപ�ര�� ക�ട�യ��(�ച�ച� ഉറച� എന�� �� മറ �� ഇ(�(�� ജ�വ�ത സ�Aചര1ങള ഉകണന �ക�ണ�ച� കക�ണ� കളവ�യ ക�ര1ങള എഴ�ത��ചര�� ''
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 14
sufficient to maintain an action for defamation. Further, it is seen from the lower court records that along with the complaint, he had produced a copy of the objection filed by the first accused before the authorities which will form part of the complaint. So, even if the allegations are not reproduced, if it is alleged in the complaint that what is stated in the objections filed by the accused are false and they were known to be false to the accused persons, but made with an intention to defame the complainant or the accused persons have reason to believe that it is likely to affect his reputation among the public along with the production of that petition filed by him, will be sufficient as it fulfills the requirements substantively.
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 15
complaint filed by the accused are false and they were known to be false to the persons who made the same, but it was made with an intention to defame him is sufficient, for the purpose of considering as to whether the complaint has to be taken o file or not. All other matters are to be proved by the complainant by adducing evidence. Further, the fact that the complaints were filed by the accused pursuant to a circular issued by the Government and it was done in good faith and they are justified by truth etc., are defences available to the accused and they have to be proved by adducing evidence. This was so held in the decision reported in Rumugam v. Kittu (2009(1) KLT Suppl.841 (SC). In the decision reported in Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P (2013(1) Supreme 131), it has been held that in a case where there are prima facie materials available for proceeding with a complaint and other matters are to be decided on the basis of evidence, then, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the threshold, invoking the power
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
16
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. So, under such circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings at the threshold as the documents produced along with the complaint are sufficient to issue process against the accused and it cannot be said that no offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted at this stage and all other matters agitated by the petitioners before this Court are matters to be considered on the basis of evidence. So, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this will not affect the right of the petitioner to agitate all contentions raised by them before the court and the concerned court considering the same on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law untrammelled by the observations made in this order. These
Crl.MC No.1027/2010
17
observations were made only for the limited purpose of considering the question as to whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked or not and not for any other purpose. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 30.08.2013.
The office is directed to communicate this order
to the court below at the earliest and return the records to the court below immediately.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE
sta
Crl.MC No.1027/2010 18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint alleging defamation adequately stated the necessary intention to defame to withstand quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner's filing of objections to the BPL list pursuant to a government circular attracted criminal liability for defamation.
Whether the case requires trial on evidence rather than being quashed at the threshold based on the sufficiency of the complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha v. Vinodan T.S.Explained¶54
Rekha v. Vinodan T.S. (2009 (3) KHC 477)
Madhavi Amma v. Sherief (1985 KLT 330)Explained¶57
Madhavi Amma v. Sherief
Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram (1971 (3) SCC 399)Explained¶61
Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram
Rumugam v. KittuDistinguished¶90
Rumugam v. Kittu (2009 (1) KLT Suppl. 841)
Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P.Explained¶90
Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. (2013 (1) Supreme 131)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.G.Vidyasagar
K.G.Swathikan
P.V.Jaladharan
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
