Allowed

Leela Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020Crl.MC/2328/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed a private complaint in defamation proceedings filed against newspaper editors and publishers. The court held that the news report was based on a truthful revelation by a retired Superintendent of Police regarding a security matter and thus attracted the first exception under Section 499 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The private complaint and further proceedings in CC No. 933/2015 are quashed as they constitute an abuse of the process of court.

Leela Menon Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 933/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 TO 9:

¶8

1 LEELA MENON, EDITOR, JANMABHUMI DAILY, ELAMAKKARA, PERANDOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682 026.

¶9

2 P.BALAKRISHNAN, MANAGING EDITOR, JANMABHUMI DAILY, ELAMAKKARA, PERANDOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682 026.

¶10

3 S.RANGANADHAN, JANMABHUMI PRINTER & PUBLISHER, JANMABHUMI DAILY, TC NO.9/2760, NIETHRUBHA, THIRUVANANTHAPHRUAM-10.

¶11

4 P.C.KRISHNAVARAMA RAJ PRINTER & PUBLISHER, JANMABHUMI DAILY, ALPHA BUILDINGS, RAILWAY CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-2.

¶12

5 P.SIVADASAN PRINTER & PUBLISHER, JANMABHUMI DAILY,

¶13

ELAMAKKARA, PERANDOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682 026.

¶14

6 V.SASIDHARAN PRINTER & PUBLISHER, JANMABHUMI DAILY, LESSY COMPLEX, NEAR TRAINING SCHOOL, KANNUR-2.

¶15

7 V.SADASIVAN NAIR PRINTER & PUBLISHER, JANMABHUMI DAILY,XIII-137,

¶16

BHARATH BUILDING, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1.

¶17

8 M.BALAKRISHNAN REPORTER AND BUREAU CHIEF, JANMABHUMI DAILY,

¶18

ALPHA BUILDINGS,

¶19

JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN ROAD, KOZHIKODE-2.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶21

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 2

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

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

¶24

2 ADAM MUSLY S/O.ABOOBACKER, YOUTH CONGRESS, STATE GENERAL SECRETARY, NOUFAL MANZIL, POKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶25

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶26

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SMT.M.N.MAYA

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 3

¶29

ORDER

¶30

A private complaint was submitted alleging offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC against the accused Nos. 1 to 9. During the pendency of the complaint the accused No.2 passed away. The accused Nos.3 to 9 came up to quash the complaint and further proceedings thereof in CC.No.933/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Calicut. It is based on a publication of a news item in a newspaper, which is extracted below for reference:

¶31

പപാകക പാരനനുമപായയി ബനന്ധം യയൂതക നനതപാവ് ആദന്ധം മനുൽസയികക

¶32

നകപാഴയിനകപാട: പപാകക്കിസപാൻ ചപാരൻ മമുഹമ്മദ ഫഹദമുമപായക്കി അടമുത്ത ബനന്ധം പമുലർത്തക്കിയ യമുവജന രപാഷഷഷ്ട്രീയനനതപാവ് യയൂത് ത നകപാൺഷഗ്രസ സന്ധംസപാന ജനറൽ സസഷകട്ടറക്കി ആദന്ധം മമുൽസക്കിയപാസണെനമുന്ധം യമുവ നനതപാവക്കിസന സന്ധംരകക്കിച്ചത് മമുഖഖ്യമഷനക്കി ഉമ്മൻചപാണക്കി ആസണെനമുന്ധം റക്കിട്ട.എസ പക്കി സക്കി എന്ധം ഷപദഷ്ട്രീപ കമുമപാറക്കിനസറ സവളക്കിസപ്പെടമുത്തൽ. പപാകക്കിസപാൻ ചപാരൻ മമുഹമ്മദ ഫഹദമുമപായക്കി യമുവജന നനതപാവക്കിന അടമുത്ത ബനമമുസണനമുന്ധം മപാറപാട കയൂട്ടസകപാലയകത്ത് സതപാട് ട മമുമപാണ് ഫഹദ നകരളന്ധം

¶33

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 4

¶34

സന്ദർശക്കിച്ചസതനമുന്ധം കഴക്കിഞ്ഞദക്കിവസന്ധം ഷപദഷ്ട്രീപ കമുമപാർ സവളക്കിസപ്പെടമുത്തക്കിയക്കിരമുനമു. ഇനസല സസ്വകപാരഖ്യ ചപാനലക്കിന നൽകക്കിയ അഭക്കിമമുഖത്തക്കിലപാണ് നനതപാവക്കിനസറ നപര് അനദ്ദേഹന്ധം സവളക്കിസപ്പെടമുത്തക്കിയത്. ആദന്ധം മമുൽസക്കിസയ സന്ധംരകക് ക മുന നക്കിലപപാടപാണ് ഉമ്മൻചപാണക്കിയക്കിൽ നക്കിനത്ത് ഉണപായസതനമുന്ധം ഷപദഷ്ട്രീപ കമുമപാർ പറഞ്ഞമു. ഭഷ്ട്രീകരപാഷകമണെനമപാ നബപാന്ധംബ് സനഫപാടനനമപാ ആയക്കിരമുനക്കിലല്ല ഫഹദക്കിനസറ സന്ദർശന ലകഖ്യന്ധം. മറക്കിച്ചത്ത് സപാമത്തക് ക മപാനനജസമൻറ് ആയക്കിരമുനമു. ഇകപാരഖ്യന്ധം സമപാഴക്കിസയടമുകമുനമപാൾ ഫഹദ സമ്മതക്കിച്ചതപാണ്. മപാറപാട കയൂട്ടസകപാലയകത്ത് പക്കിനക്കിസല സപാമത്തക് ക നഷസപാതസത്ത് അനനസ്വഷക് ക മുനതക്കിന ഇടയക്കിലപാണ് ഫഹദക്കിനസറ ബനന്ധം കസണത്തക്കിയത്. ഫഹദമുമപായക്കി അടമുത്ത ബനന്ധം പമുലർത്തക്കിയക്കിരമുന യമുവജന രപാഷഷഷ്ട്രീയ നനതപാവപായക്കിരമുനമു ആദന്ധം മമുൽസക്കി. എനപാൽ തനസറ നഫപാൺ കടൽകരയക്കിൽ കളക് ക മുനമപാൾ വഷ്ട്രീണെമു നപപായതപാസണെനമുന്ധം അത് മറപാർകമുന്ധം ലഭക്കിച്ചക്കിട് ട ണപാവപാസമനമുന്ധം അയപാൾ ആയക്കിരക് ക മുന്ധം ഫഹദമുമപായക്കി ബനസപ്പെട്ടസതനമുമമുള പരക്കിഹപാസഖ്യമപായ മറമുപടക്കിയപാണ് ആദന്ധം മമുൽസക്കി നൽകക്കിയസതനമുന്ധം ഷപദഷ്ട്രീപകമുമപാർ സവളക്കിസപ്പെടമുത്തക്കിയക്കിരമുനമു. യമുവജന നനതപാവക്കിനസറ നപര് സവളക്കിസപ്പെട്ട നതപാസട മമുഖഖ്യമഷനക്കിയമുന്ധം സകപക്കിസക്കിസക്കി ഷപസക്കിഡനറമുന്ധം ഇകപാരഖ്യത്തക്കിൽ നക്കിലപപാട വഖ്യക്തമപാകണെസമന ആവശഖ്യന്ധം ഉയർനമുകഴക്കിഞ്ഞമു. എനപാൽ മമുഖഖ്യമഷനക്കിനയപാ വക്കി എന്ധം സമുധഷ്ട് ര നനപാ ഇകപാരഖ്യത്തക്കിൽ ഇതമുവസര ഷപതക് ക രക് ക പാൻ തയപാറപായക്കിട്ടക്കിലല്ല.”

¶35

Going by the said news item, it is clear that what is reported is with respect to the revelation made by Retired S.P., one C.M. Pradip Kumar, in a news channel, wherein he had disclosed the visit of one Mohammed Fahad, a Pakistan citizen, just before the Marrad Massacre and the

¶36

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 5

¶37

funding alleged to have been made in connection with the said Massacre. It is stated that during the investigation pertaining to the source of money and funding connected with the Marrad Massacre, the close relationship between the abovesaid Fahad and the defacto complainant came to his notice. It is also revealed by him that the defacto complainant made a proscriptive reply that he lost his mobile phone while taking a bath in the sea and somebody has taken away and used it to contact with the abovesaid Mohammed Fahad. Against the said news item the defacto complainant came up with a private

¶38

complaint alleging the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 9.

¶39

The said news item published by accused

¶40

Nos.2 to 9 is a true version of what is stated by a

¶41

retired S.P., regarding the source of money and funding in connection with the Marrad Massacre. It

¶42

contains a revelation that the mobile phone

¶43

belonged to the defacto complainant used for contacting with the abovesaid Pakistan citizen Mohammed Fahad.

¶44

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 6

¶45

In fact, what is reported in the news item

¶46

in a daily newspaper is the true version of what actually spoken by the accused No.1, retired S.P. in connection with Marrad Massacre. Hence it will

¶47

not constitute the offence as defined under Section 499 or offence under Section 500 IPC against the petitioners.

¶48

Further, it is the solemn duty of the fourth estate to publish all news materials, especially having public importance and it is their further duty to comment on the news material with its pros and cons so as to enlighten the society to remain vigilant on the matters of public importance. It would squarely come under the first exception attached to Section 499 IPC, when it is done with bonafides for the public interest. The fourth

¶49

estate being one of the rostrums to address and comment on each and every matters governing public interest/ public importance in a democratic society, the news item published with necessary comments, though sometimes

¶50

contemptuous, may not itself amount to a

¶51

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 7

¶52

defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC, unless the same is lacking in good faith and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The first proviso to Section 499 IPC has got a wide canvass in a democratic system and right to publish a news item with its necessary comments and views though sometimes contemptuous, cannot be defeated unless malafides writ large on its face and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The contemptuous nature of news item if it is connected with imputation of truth which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence. The news item published hence will not attract the

¶53

offence of defamation as defined under Section

¶54

499 IPC. The present private complaint is really

¶55

intended to defeat the solemn function vested with

¶56

the fourth estate and it will tell upon what is

¶57

behind it, especially when there is serious revelation made by accused No.1 regarding the

¶58

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 8

¶59

contact between a Pakistan citizen through the mobile phone of defacto complainant. A sect of people living in the seashore of Marrad are the victims. The version that the mobile phone of the defacto complainant lost in the seashore while taking a bath assumes importance. Hence, it requires a serious consideration by the Police and the inaction, if any, from the part of Police would amount to compromising with the security of the nation as well the State and

¶60

the society at large, especially when it is connected with the massacre of a sect of people. Hence the complaint and the further

¶61

proceedings being an abuse of the process of court are hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.2328 OF 2016 9

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

ANNEXURE A	A TRUE COPY OF WPC NO.1713/201 HIGH COURT	THE 2 B	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN EFORE THE HONOURABLE
ANNEXURE B	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 3/5/2014	THE IN	NEWS PAPER REPORT JANMABHOOMI DAILY.
ANNEXURE C	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 3/5/2014	THE IN	NEWS PAPER REPORT JANMABHOOMI DAILY.
ANNEXURE D	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 4/5/2014	THE IN	NEWS PAPER REPORT JANMABHOOMI DAILY.
ANNEXURE E	A TRUE COPY OF CC NO.933/2015 HONOURABLE JFMC	THE PEN -II	PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN DING BEFORE THE I, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE F	A TRUE COPY OF 8/5/2014 ISSUED FACTO COMPLAINA	THE ON NT	NOTICE DATED BEHALF OF THE DE-
ANNEXURE G	A TRUE COPY OF 29/5/2014 ISSUE ACCUSED/PETITIO	THE D O NER	REPLY NOTICE DATED N BEHALF OF THE S

¶71

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶72

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

Leela Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Menon 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

Sabarinathan Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

P M Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sreenivasan, Vs State of Kerala

Sabi Vs George Mathew

Aneesh Babu Vs State of Kerala