Allowed

Muhammed Kutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2018Crl.MC/4605/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case arising under Sections 500 and 34 IPC, the Court held that the use of the name 'Sundari' as a prefix to the complainant's name and those of his family members in a civil suit constituted defamation. Consequently, the case against the second petitioner was ordered to be quashed, while proceedings against the first petitioner were to continue.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case against the second petitioner alone in CC.1106/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi is quashed.

Muhammed Kutty Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4605 of 2017

¶6

CC.NO.1106/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,KOCHI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.P.K.ALI, AGED 78 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ERAVELI DESOM, THAMARAKKULAM ROAD, FORT KOCHI-1.

¶9

2 SUDHEER HUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.P.K.ALI, AGED 45 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ERAVELI DESOM, THAMARAKKULAM ROAD, FORT KOCHI-1. (REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.P.K.ALI, AGED 78 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ERAVELI DESOM, THAMARAKKULAM ROAD, FORT KOCHI-1)

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. M.HAMSA,S/O.MUHAMMED, C.C.3/309, ERAVELI CANAL ROAD, FORT KOCHI-1.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA R2 BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 4605 of 2017 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED UNDER SECTION 200 OF CR.P.C. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT O.S.NO.68 OF 2013 IN THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE A3(A)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN THE ABOVE SUIT.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4(A)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S WIFE.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.4605 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2018

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶32

Petitioners are the accused in CC.1106/2015 of

¶33

the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi, for the offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had filed a civil suit as OS.68/2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in which IAs were also filed. In all the said proceedings, the name of the complainant herein was shown as 'Sundari Hamsa'. His mother's name is also shown as 'Sundari Aysha'. Along with his wife's name as well as son's name also, the said term 'Sundari' was deliberately used by the 1^st accused. According to the complainant, the term 'Sundari' was never being used as a prefix to his name or a prefix to his mother's name, or along with the name of any of his relatives. According to him, the same has been

¶34

Crl.M.C.4605/2017

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

unnecessarily made use of for defaming him.

¶37

It has been pointed out that the 2^nd petitioner

¶38

herein, who is the 2^nd accused, has been unnecessarily indicted in the case and he is not a party either to the suit or to the IA. There is nothing to show that the 2^nd petitioner has made use of any such expression as a prefix to the name of the complainant or the mother of the complainant. Matters being so, the case against the 2^nd petitioner can be quashed. At the same time, the 1^st petitioner has to face the trial.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part and all further proceedings as against the 2^nd petitioner alone in CC.1106/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi, are quashed.

¶40

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶41

aks/12/02

¶42

The name of the lower court “Judicial First Class

¶43

Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi” occurring in the 2^nd line of 1^st

¶44

Crl.M.C.4605/2017

¶45

: 3 :

¶46

paragraph at page 1 and in the 3^rd and 4^th lines of the operative portion at page 2 of the final order dated 12.02.2018 in Crl.M.C. No.4605/2017 are corrected and substituted as “Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Mattancherry” as per order dated 09.10.2018 in Crl.M.A. No.1/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.4605/2017.

¶47

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

Muhammed Kutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kutty 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

Shafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Kandathiparambu Sri.Bhuvameswari Devaswm Vs P.Ambika

Satya Narayana Vs Prabha Mony K.K

Sarasakumari Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs M/S. Cavalier Coaching and Security

.Ramesh Vs P.a.Joseph