The criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings in a defamation case filed under the Mangalam Daily was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioners' counsel and the lack of active representation after four years of inactivity.
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 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.98 OF 2017 (B)
CC 652/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADIMALY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3:
2 SAJAN VARGHESE, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF MANGALAM DAILY, S.H MOUNT, KOTTAYAM
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031
2 SASIKUMAR T.K, S/o RAMANKUNJUKUNJU, THOPPIL HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO VARGHESE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.11.2020. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.98 of 2017
2
ORDER
Petitioners and counsel remained absent and there was no representation. It is a matter of the year 2017. Four years already elapsed. The prayer in the application is to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.652/2015. It is a matter wherein the court has taken cognizance under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C, on the allegation of a news item published in Mangalam newspaper, which, according to the defacto complainant, is defamatory. It is submitted that the said news item was published in good faith. It may be a defence available to the party concerned at the trial court. The same cannot be used as a weapon for attacking the cognizance already taken under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The availability of a valid defence may not be a sufficient ground to exhaust the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the absence of the counsel will tell upon what is behind it. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
DMR/-
Crl.M.C.No.98 of 2017
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C NO 652/2015 IN THE FILE OF HON'BLE JFCM COURT, ADIMALY. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF 'MANGALAM' DAILY DATED 22/09/2013. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF 'MANGALAM' DAILY DATED 23/09/2013. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the availability of a defence of good faith in a defamation case is a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sabu Varghese
Sajan Varghese
State of Kerala
Sasikumar T.K
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
