Allowed

M.v.Nikesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021Crl.MC/4355/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted interim relief to quash criminal proceedings against a news channel and its editors for defamation (Section 500 IPC) arising from a report on labour malpractices involving foreign employment agencies. The court held that the report served public interest and fell under the First Exception to Section 499 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance taken under Section 500 IPC and further proceedings in C.C. No. 634/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate are quashed.

M.v.Nikesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 634/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1 M.V.NIKESH KUMAR S/O LATE M.V. RAGHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EDITOR, REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 503.

¶9

2 ANEESH BURFOM AGED 48 YEARS, EDITOR, REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 503.

¶10

3 REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY, HMT COLONY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY M.V. NIKESH KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EDITOR, REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 503.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O SAMI VENCHERIMEETHAL, AGED 47 YEARS, THAYYULATHIL HOUSE,CHEVAYUR P.O, CALICUT 673 571, REPRESENTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O P.M. MUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, FLAT NO 6F, P.V.S. NAVARATHNA, P.M. KUTTY ROAD, CALICUT 673 006.

¶15

R1 BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Regarding a complaint submitted by the labourers of a firm in Riyad alleging malpractices and non-payment of wages and salary before the Embassy was telecasted by a television channel, against which, the defacto complainant came up with a compliant before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III, Kozhikode, over which cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Persons were recruited by an agency functioning in Dubai and the complainant is the Sales Executive. Prosecution was initiated through a Power of Attorney holder of complainant. Allegations are against the recruitment of various persons to the said firm and non-payment of wages, salary etc., for which some of the labourers lodged a complaint before the Embassy. The defacto

¶21

¶22

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶23

complainant did not have any case of personal grievance apart from the recruitment company at Dubai and the firm at Riyad. It is not clear under what capacity the Sales Executive maintained an action under Section 500 IPC against the accused - the Chief Editor, Editor and the television channel ( accused No.1 to 3) without having any personal grievance. The firm in Riyad against whom the complaint was filed or the recruitment agency in Dubai did not come up with any complaint. It is a Sales Executive attached with the recruitment agency through a power holder came up without showing any personal grievance. He cannot maintain an action under Section 500 IPC simply because of the reason that he is a staff working in the firm, against whom the news item was telecasted.

¶24

Even otherwise, the news item published

¶25

will not constitute the offence under Section

¶26

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶27

¶28

500 IPC. This Court had the occasion to consider the said question in Leela Menon and

¶29

Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2020 KHC 834 = 2020 (6) KHC SN 6 = 2020(2) KLD 818) . The relevant portion of paragraph 5 of the said judgment is extracted below:

¶30

“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 S.499 IPC, when it is done with bonafides for the public interest. The fourth 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 contemptuous, may not itself amount to

¶31

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶32

¶33

a defamation as defined under S.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 S.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.”

¶34

In the instant case, the news item was

¶35

telecasted taking into account the public interest involved in the matter so as to enlighten the society especially the

¶36

unemployed youth, who are aspirant of an employment abroad. Hence, the cognizance taken and its further proceedings in C.C.No.

¶37

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶38

¶39

634/2015 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class III, Kozhikode are hereby quashed.

¶40

The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C 634/05 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS III, KOZHIKODE.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

PA TO JUDGE

M.v.Nikesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Nikesh Kumar 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

Libsy Ann Merin Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs the State of Kerala

Hanan a Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Karnan Vs State of Kerala

A.C.Chummar Vs Muthoot Bankers

Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke Vs Joseph Joseph