Disposed

Jossey Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2016Crl.MC/1080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition to quash defamation proceedings, the High Court held that it cannot entertain the prayer when the core issue involves the applicability of exceptions under Section 499 IPC. However, it directed the lower court to dispose of the case expeditiously within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings could not be quashed; lower court directed to dispose of the case within nine months.

Jossey Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/26TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1080 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST IN CC 1812/2015 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSSEY MATHEW

¶9

S/O.MATHEW ANAKKAD, ANAKKAD HOUSE, APPOLO ROAD, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SRI.A.S.SREEJAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695033. 3. HIBI EDEN S/O.GEORGE EDEN, EDEN GARDENS, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682017.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.F.MOHAMMOD SIYAD R3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R3 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA R1 &2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. DHANIL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 1080 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶18

ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT.

¶19

ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SANGH PARIVAR JANAKEEYA SAMITHI.

¶20

ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF THE COLOUR PHOTOSTAT OF IMAGE TAKEN BY THE PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS.

¶21

ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 06.02.2016.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2016.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING DISPATCH OF ANNEXURE-A5.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A7: TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF DELIVERY NOTE PUBLISHED BY THE INDIA POST IN THEIR WEBSITE.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 1080 of 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated 17^th November, 2016

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.1812 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The prayer in this petition is to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid case on the ground that the allegations will not constitute an offence under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC.

¶36

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 3^rd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a public spirited person and he had uncovered the malpractices and irregularities in connection with the construction of Pachalam Railway Over bridge and the illegalities committed by the authorities in connection with the land acquisition. It is the specific case of the

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.1080 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

petitioner that the Annexures produced along with this petition would reveal that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of exception to Section 499 of the IPC as the imputation made by the petitioner was of the public good. It is urged that Annexures-A3 to A5 would reveal that the imputations levelled against the 3^rd respondent are true and genuine and therefore the offence will not be made out.

¶41

4.The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits reying on the decision of the Apex Court Rumugam v. Kittu [2009(1) SCC 101], that a person who pleads exception will have to prove it by evidence and the proceedings cannot be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482. Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. [2013 (2) SCC 801] to bring home the point that when prima facie materials are laid out and the matter is to be

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.1080 of 2016

¶43

-3-

¶44

decided on the basis of evidence, the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted.

¶45

5.I find merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. In a case where the question of applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 is raised, this Court will not be justified in invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code (see Jeffrey J Diermeier and Another v. State of West Bengal and

¶46

Another [2010 KHC 4383 ]).

¶47

6.However, in view of the fervent prayer advanced by the petitioner, this Court had called for a report from the learned Magistrate. It is reported that all endeavor will be made by the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, though the prayer to quash the proceedings cannot be entertained,

¶49

Crl.M.C. No.1080 of 2016

¶50

-4-

¶51

the learned Magistrate is directed to make all efforts to take up and dispose of the matter expeditiously taking the matter to a logical conclusion at any rate within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶53

kp/-17.11.16

Jossey Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jossey Mathew 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Badusha Vs State of Kerala

Prabhasony Vs State of Kerala

Aslam Vs K.M.Bijeesh

Subramanyan Vs Thampi

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala