The Kerala High Court dismissed the complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC due to lack of specific allegations against the petitioner in the caveat, quashed criminal proceedings initiated on its basis, and deemed the filing an abuse of process.
Complaint and proceedings in C.C.No.3048/2016 are quashed.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.2705 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 3048/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 SUSEELAN G S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, "KRISHNA PRIYA'36/1784, ARAKAR VASUDEVA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O,ERNAKULAM.
2 SHAJI MOHAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, FLAT NO. 7C, G.M. TOWERS, VADUTHALA P.O, KOCHI.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PARACKAL SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 JAISON PANIKULANGARA
S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, ALUVAM DESOM,PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ALUVA-683101.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R1 BY ADV. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA R2 BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.2705 OF 2017
2
ORDER
The accused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3048/2016
of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy
came up to quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against them based on a private
complaint submitted by the first respondent on
the allegation of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The allegation is that in the
caveat lodged by accused No. 1 and 2, there is a
reference to the complainant as 'goonda', which according to the complainant is defamatory and reduced his reputation among the society. It is
also alleged that a pamphlet was also published referring him as 'goonda'.
along with the complaint were summoned. A mere
perusal of the caveat lodged by accused No.1
would show that there is no specific reference against the first respondent/defacto complainant.
It was lodged against 12 persons, including the
Crl.MC.No.2705 OF 2017
3
first respondent. The reference made in the complaint is against some of the respondents therein. That does not mean that it is against the defacto complainant. Nothing is there in the caveat to show any defamatory statement specifically against the defacto
complainant/first respondent. When there is no specific allegation pointing to the defacto complainant, the offence under Section 500 IPC will not stand attracted.
not produced along with the complaint. It is without producing the pamphlet/statement
containing defamatory statement against the defacto complainant, a complaint was lodged.
Crl.MC.No.2705 OF 2017
Hence it will tell upon what is behind it and it would be an abuse of the process of court. Hence, the complaint and the proceedings in C.C.No.3048/2016 of Judicial First Class
Magistrate are hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
Crl.MC.No.2705 OF 2017
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 3048/2016 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDY.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed for lack of specific defamatory allegations against the complainant.
Whether the complaint satisfies the requirements under Section 500 IPC regarding specific identification of the victim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suseelan G
Shaji Mohan
Jaison Panikulangara
State of Kerala
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
