Accused sought quashing of a private-complaint prosecution for defamation over a Samastha commemorative book article criticising Shamseeya Thareeqath. The High Court held the truth/public-good defence is a question of fact for trial and beyond Section 482 Cr.PC scope, and dismissed the petition.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1039 OF 2016
[IN THE MATTER OF C.C.NO.1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM]
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3, 5,6 AND 8 TO 15:
1 T.HASSAN FAISY AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, ERANHIPPALAM JUMA MASJID, ERANHIPPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN 6730062 A.V. ABDURAHIMAN MUSALIYAR AGED 70 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, DARUSSALAM ARABIC COLLEGE, NANDI POST, KADALUR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE.3 K.T.M. BASHEER MASTER AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN MUSALIYAR, PANANGANGARA POST, RAMAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 6793504 G.M. SALAHUDEEN FAISY AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ABDUL JABBAR FAISY, M.K. HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN 6793365 P.A. SADHIQUE FAISY AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, ‘SATHYADHARA' FORTNIGHTLY ISLAMIC CENTRE, KOZHIKODE, PIN 6730016 BHAHAVUDEEN MUHAMMED NADVI AGED 65 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED JALALUDHEEN MUSALIYAR, DARUL HUDA ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY, HIDAYA NAGAR, CHEMMAD POST, MALAPPURAM7 PINANGODE ABOOBACKER AGED 60 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, SAMASTHALAYAM, CHELARI, THENHIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 6736368 VAKKODE MOIDEENKUTTY FAISY AGED 66 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, DARUL NAJATH ISLAMIC CENTRE, PUNNAKKAD POST, KARUVARAKUNDU, PIN 6765239 ALAVI FAISY AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUNHAYAMU, KOLAPARAMBU, KARKKIDAMKUNNU POST, ALANALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 67860210 M.K. KODASSERI FAISY AGED 65 YEARSCRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 2
S/O.MUHAMMED, MARKKASU, THARBIYATHUL ISLAMIYA, POST
KAARTHALA, AATHAVANADU, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN 676552
11HAMSA RAHMANI
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.UNNEEN, KONDIPPARAMB POST, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN 679322
12FAISAL HUDABI
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, MARIYAD POST, POOKKOTTOOR, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676121
13P.K. LATHEEF FAISY
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, SUNNI MAHAL, DOWN HILL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676519
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.RAMADAS
SRI.T.SIVADASAN
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1DR.HASSAN THANGAL
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.SAYD MUHAMMED JALALUDEEN AATTAKOYA THANGAL @
CHEMBATTIMMADA AATTAKOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAPURA
PUTHIYADVEEDU HOUSE, ANDROTH, UTI OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN
682551
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
R1 BY ADV. S.RAJEEV
R2 BY SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2024, THE COURT ON 15.02.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 3
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C is filed by the accused Nos.1
to 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 15 in C.C.No.1145/2014 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Malappuram. The prayer sought is to quash
all proceedings in the said Calendar Case as
against the said petitioners.
2.The said Calendar Case was instituted on
the basis of a private complaint submitted by
the 1st respondent herein alleging offences
punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused
persons. Annexure-I is the complaint submitted
by the 1st respondent, and the learned Magistrate
took cognizance thereon for the offences
referred to above, and the same is now pending
trial. The basic allegation in the said
complaint is to the effect that the petitioners,
along with the other accused, have published a
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 4 book titled as "സത്യസരണിയുടെ� ചരി്ᩔ സാ്ᩌ്യ ം - സമ്ᩜ 85-)o
വാർഷിക�ാപഹാരം-2012 ” which contained an article
published by the 1st accused wherein certain
defamatory statements were made against late
Sayyid Mohammed Jalaludheen Attakoya Thangal @
Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and late P.P.
Sayyid Mohammed Fazal Pookoya Thangal @ Pookoya
Thangal. The 1st respondent/complainant is the
son of the sister of the said persons. According
to the complainant, certain statements contained
therein, which are at pages 439 and 667 to 670
of the said book are expressly and impliedly
against the reputation, dignity and good name of
the above deceased persons.
3. The specific case of the petitioners is
that, the statements contained in the said book
which are referred to in the complaint, would
not attract the offences alleged against them.
Therefore, it was contended that the entire
proceedings are a futile exercise and are
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 5
abusive of the process of the court. However,
without properly applying the mind, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences.
Crl.M.C is filed in such circumstances.
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.
S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the
1st respondent and Smt.Seetha S., the learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
submits that, under no circumstances, the
statements highlighted in Annexure-A1 complaint
can be treated as defamatory statement which
would attract the offences referred to above.
According to him, the book was published as a
collection of various articles written by the
various persons concerned, about the historical
emergence of Sathyasarani propagatedby
“Samastha Kerala Jam’eyyat ul-Ulama” (Samastha).
It was pointed out that, ‘Samastha’ is an
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 6 association of eminent scholars who enjoy highest support base among Kerala Muslims. They conduct an organize various programs aimed to propagate and spread the rites and beliefs of Islam according to the real view of Ahalu Sunnah Wal-Jama’ath, to legally prevent the organizations and campaigns which are against such rites thereby to look after all the rights and powers of the Muslim community in Kerala, to promote and encourage religious education and do the needful for the secular education that will
be compatible with religious beliefs and
culture. As part of the objectives of the said
organization, they rigorously opposed many
thareeqaths that emerged in the State from time
to time. The persons referred to in the
extracted portion of the article namely Sayyid
Mohammed Jalaludheen Attakoya Thangal @
Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and late P.P.
Sayyid Mohammed Fasal Pookoya Thangal @ Pookoya
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 7
Thangal were the propagators of one such
Thareeqaths, namely “Shamseeya Thareeqath”. The
basic idea and beliefs propagated as part of the
said Thareeqath were against the common belief
of Islam and various objections have been raised
by the religious scholars in the meetings
conducted by the “Samastha” at various places at
various occasions. The publication which are the
subject matter of this case were made in
connection with the resolutions and articles
published in the commemorative volumes in
relations with the 85th Annual Conference of
“Samastha”.
6.It was also pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that, there had been
a long dispute between the followers of
“Shamseeya Thareeqath” and the followers of
“Samastha” with regard to the practices that
were being followed by the “Shamseeya
Thareeqath”. As early as in 1986, the Khasi of
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 8
Androth had declared that “Lakshadweep Shariyath
Pravarthaka Sambarka Samithi” founded by late
C.M.Attakoya and subsequently headed by
P.Puthiyaveedu Pookkoya Thangal were following
anti-islamic activities and therefore they were
excommunicated from Islam as they were adherents
to “Shamseeya Thareeqath”. The said dispute was
the subject matter of Crl.RP No.10/1987 and
Crl.M.C.No.42/1987 which were disposed of by
this Court by order dated 09.04.1987 which is
reported as Attakoya Thangal v. Union Territory
of Lakshadweep [1987(1)KLT 762]. Thus, it was
pointed out that, there was a long standing
conflict of ideas between the “Samastha” and
followers of “Shamseeya Thareeqath” and the
contents of the articles published in the said
publication was with respect to a fair criticism
of the practices followed by the “Shamseeya
Thareeqath”. It was pointed out that, those
expressions were made in the said article by the
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 9
publishers with the intention to give a message
to the members and followers of “Samastha” and
the Muslim community as a whole, with regard to
correct practices which are to be followed and
to oppose the non-Islamic practices that were
being propagated in the name of the said
Thareeqath. Therefore, it was pointed out that,
being a fair criticism of the ideas and
practices followed by the propagators and
followers of “Shamseeya Thareeqath”, under no
circumstances, such statements would fall under
the category of defamatory statements so as to
warrant a criminal prosecution under Sections
499 and 500 of the IPC.
7.According to the petitioners, it was an
expression of the truth concerning them, and the
same was being propagated for the public good,
namely, for the benefit of the members and
followers of the Muslim community as a whole.
Therefore, the offences are not made out even if
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 10
the allegations contained in Annexure A1
complaint are accepted for its face value,
contends the learned counsel for petitioners.
The learned counsel also places reliance upon
the decisions in State of Gujarat v. Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde[(2014)3 SCC 659)], Patel Maheshbhai
Ranchodbhai v. State of Gujarat [2014(4) KLT SN 26
(C.No.32)SC, Kesava Menon v. Bindu [2021(2) KLT 381]
and G.Narasimhan and Others v. T.V.Chokkappa [AIR 1972
SC 2609].
8.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent opposes the said applications. It is
pointed out that, the contentions raised are
questions of facts which are to be raised and
considered during the course of trial. It was
pointed out that, among the statements referred
to in the complaint, there are certain specific
statements which raise personal allegations
against Sri.Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and
late P.P.Sayyid Mohammed Fasal Pookoya Thangal.
It was pointed out that, under no circumstances,
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 11
those statements could be treated as the
statements amounting to fair criticism or assertion
of the truth with the intention to protect the
public good. Therefore, it was pointed out that,
as the contentions basically raised by the
petitioners are by seeking the protection of the
exceptions contained under Section 499 of IPC,
the adjudication of the same are beyond the
scope of a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC.
As regards the allegations raised in the
complaint, the 1st respondent is to be granted an
opportunity to establish the same during the
trial by adducing evidence and denial of the
said opportunity by prematurely terminating the
proceedings invoking the powers under section
482 Cr.PC is not at all proper. The learned
counsel places reliance upon the decision in
M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037],
K.M.Mathew v. K.A.Abraham and Ors.[2002(3)KLT 282(SC)]
and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra [2021(2)KLT OnLine 1039(SC)]= [2021(3) KLT
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 12
SN (C.No.3)SC].In such circumstances, the learned
counsel for the petitioners seeks dismissal of
the Crl.M.C.
9.Thus, the crucial question that arises
is whether the petitioners have established a
case for invoking the jurisdiction under section
482 Cr.PC. For considering the said question, a
careful reading of the statements, which
according to the 1st respondent, were defamatory,
are to be carefully scrutinized. The English
translation of the relevant statement as
extracted in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. are as
follows:
“Page 439, Column 2,Paragraph-4: “I read the
letters received from various centers against the
Shamsiya Thareeqath, which is propagated by one
Pookoya Thangal of the Androth Island and as the
said Thareeqath is wrong one and astray, Muslims
shall not contact or co-operate with it”
Page Nos.667-670:“Shamsiya Thareeqath”:-
“Another criticized Thareeqath is Shamsiya. It is
one Chempattimmada Attakoya who came up with this
Thareeqath in 1962. The Jamiyyathul Himayathu-
Saree- Al-Islamiya which is a council of Islamic
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 13
Scholars in Lakshadweep had revealed the anti-
shareeath movements and exploiting attitudes of
this Thareeqath at that time itself. The
Thareeqath was a short cut method for making
money to attakoya, who travelled across different
areas of India as a physician. Many ignorant
people were trapped in his talkativeness. The
decision of the Lakshadweep Shareeath Samrakshana
Samithi about Shamsiya Thareeqath reads as
follows: “It was unanimously decided that the
organization named Shamsiya Thareeqath, which was
established by Champattimmada Attakoya Thangal
and is led by Puthiya Veettil Poookoya now, is
Kufriyath (Nihilism) due to the following
reasons:
(1) Chempattimmada Attakoya Thangal told
that he is in the Wahdathul Wujood and
hence Swalath (5 times compulsory prayer)
is forbidden for him, in the presence of
s.s.Fathahulla Thangal and P.P. Puthiyathan
Attakova Thangal.
As long as one attained majority and is
sane, he will not reach to a position of
the compulsions and prohibitions of Sharah
being moved away from him. The argument
that the compulsions and prohibitions of
Sharah is not applicable to those, who have
reached the culmination of love of God and
have got purity of heart and also have
separated Eeman (belief in God) from
falsehood and because of big sins they will
not be sent to the hell and his Ibadath
(worship) is not the external worship but
instead it is the thoughts, is wrong way
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 14
and Kufriyath (Nihilism) (Sharahul Akkaid)
(name of a text). One, who gives up the
compulsory five times’ prayer denying its
compulsion is Kafir (Nihilist) (Thufa)
(name of a text).
2. In a speech conductged in the presence
of Poyilam Koya, who is a follower of
Attakoya, it was told that it is reported
in Huthuhathul Makkiya (name of a text)
that for the purpose of the confirmation of
the truth looking at the sun is permitted
and it was questioned by A.I. Pookoya and
the matter reached the Juma Masjid of the
locality and there was a debate on the
issue. Poyilam Koya, P.P. Pookoya,
U.P.KasimKoya,PoyilamKunhikoya
represented one side and A.I. Pookoya
Thangal, S.S, Yousuf Koya Thangal and late
A.B. Koyammukoya Thangal represented the
other side and Bemmatha Biyyapura Attakoya
Thangal was the judge in the debate and it
was agreed by them that the confirmation of
truth cannot be obtained without the
Ibadath (Worship) and looking at the sum as
anIbadath (worship)is kufriyath
(Nihilism).
3. The Maalappattu (a kind of Mappila song
praising the abilities of somebody) named
“Nahfathul Ali Fee Midhathil Jalali” made
by Poyilam Koya and written by the present
Khaliph P.P. Pookoya in Hijra Year 1397 is
a proof for the fact that they are still in
such a belief.
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 15
4. They had voluntarily gone out of the
Islam as they told in the speeches of last
Ramzan that the respected scholars are
Kafirs (one who knowingly denies the God).
The above decisions wre taken by the
Shariat Protection Council in the year
1986.
5. Crossing the sea this Thareequath
reached Kerala also. It is Mr.P.P.
Pookoya, who came to Malabar with this
Thareeqath. Pookoya who reached in a
Mosque at Cheruvannur in Calicut as a
Musafir (traveller) made friendship with
the Musaliyar, who was an employee of that
Mosque. He introduced his Thareeqath to
the Musaliyar. The Musaliyar, who was
attracted by the words of Mr. Pookoya,
became a propagator of the Shamsiya
Thareeqath, which was fakely formed in the
name of Khadiriya Thareequath. Thus the
Thareeqath bacame popular among the laymen.
The said Musaliyar reached Kalloor near
Puthanathani in Malappuram District from
Cheruvannoor, Suppressing his actual
intention he became popular in that
locality. When he was convinced that the
majority of the people are ready to obey
his instructions, he started his work.
There is one more reason for his
popularity. The Alloor Juma Masjid, which
had been in the possession of the Mujahid
Sect, was possessed by Sunni Sect, due to
the effort of them. Taking advantage of
thesesupportingcircumstances,the
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 16
Musaliyar declared him (P.P.Pookoya) as a
holy man of that locality. He instigated
the people to join his Thareequath. He set
up a college and made the propagating
activities of this Thareequath active. The
support of the elite people and the youth
accelerated their growth.
6. Certainly the prayer (compulsory five
times’ prayer) prevent the people from the
evil and the forbidden things is what the
Quran says. But those who offer prayer now
a days are the spokesmen of all the evil
activities. So they contended that the
prayer (compulsory five times’ prayer) is
not the actual prayer as contemplated in
Quran and Sunnath (tradition of the
prophet). They made their followers accept
that looking at the sun at the time of
sunrise and sunset is a good deed.
7.As and when the Fathwa of the counsel
of scholars of Lakshadweep against them
came out “Raeesul Muhaqiqeen Kanniyath
Usthad” (name of a scholar) accepted it.
Later, when this fake Thareeqath was
propagated in Kerala also the scholars
decided to defend and defeat it. E.K.Hassan
Musaliyar, Thenhipalam Sainudheen Musaliyar
etc, tried their level best against the
Shamsiya Thareeqath. Even a public meeting
was organized against them at Puthanathani.
Kanniyath Usthad declared that “they are
the workshippers of sun” in the public
meeting in which Kanniyath Usthad (name of
a Scholar) Shamsul Ulama (name of a
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 17
Scholar), Kottumala Usthad (name of a
Scholar) and such great Scholars were
present. Because of the opposition from
“Samastha”, they could not withstand for
along”.
10.As referred to above, the specific
contentions raised by the petitioners are to the
effect that the said statement can only be
treated as a fair criticism of the practices
followed by the persons referred to above. It
was also pointed out that, the contents of the
said publication was not particularly against
the Thareeqath propagated by the persons
referred to above. But on the other hand, it was
a criticism and objection against several forms
of “Thareeqaths” such as “Korur Thareeqath”,
“Chottur Thareeqath”, “Shamseeya Thareeqath”,
“Noorisha Thareeqath” “Aluva Thareeqath” etc,
where the Shamaseeya Thareeqath was only one
among the same. Therefore, it was contended
that, a reading of the entire article as a
whole, would convey a clear impression that, it
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 18 was only a critical study of those “Thareeqaths”
keeping in view of the ideologies, activities
and opinion of eminent contemporary scholars
about the propounders of the various
Thareeqaths. Hence, the same would not attract
any of the offences.
11. While considering the said question, it
is to be noted that the scope of a proceeding
under section 482 Cr.PC is limited. As held in
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd’s case (supra),
the powers of quashing the proceedings should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection and it
should be exercised in ‘rarest of rare cases’.
It was also held in the said decision that, when
the court exercises powers under section 482
Cr.PC, it has only to consider whether the
offences are made out from the averments in the
complaint and the court is not required to
consider on merits whether or not the merits of
the allegations make out an offence. Therefore,
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 19
the question that has been raised by the
appellant as to whether statements which are
subject matter of proceeding impugned in this
case, were part of a critical study or not, is a
question to be decided during the course of
trial. This is particularly because, the
contentions raised by the petitioners are mainly
to the effect that, what they have stated in the
publications, are imputation of truth concerning
them and the same was propagated for furnishing
information to the members and followers of
“Samastha” to identify which are the correct
religious practices and which are not.
Therefore, it was intended for public good.
12.However, the crucial aspect to be
noticed in this regard is that,such a contention
is a defence available to the petitioners, by
virtue of the exceptions contained in Section
499 of IPC. As far as the sustainability of the
said contention is concerned, it can only be
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 20
treated as a matter for trial. It is to be noted
in this regard that in Subramaniam Swamy v.
Union of India [2016(7) SCC 221), the challenge
as against the statutory provision under
sections 499 and 500 IPC in terms of its
constitutionality was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the same was upheld through a
very detailed judgment. After referring to a
large number of decisions and detailed
discussions, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that, for the purpose of availing the
benefit of first exception to section 499 of IPC
which deals with imputation of truth concerning
any person which were made for public good, the
burden to establish the same is upon the
accused. Moreover, it was also held in the said
decision that, for claiming the benefit of the
first exception, both aspects referred to
therein ie. the ‘truth’ and ‘public good’ are to
be satisfied. In the first exception to section
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 21 499 IPC itself, it is clearly stipulated that whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Here, in this case, even though, the materials placed before this Court would make out a strong prima facie case as to the existence of a public good, I am of the view that, that by itself cannot be treated as a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. The prima facie case in favour of the petitioners as to public good emerges because the specific case of the petitioners is to the effect that, the imputations made in the said article were with the intention to give clear message to its followers as to what are the correct religious practices to be followed in tune with the religious test and the opinion of the religious scholars. In other words, through the said publication, the petitioners were only intending to highlight the contradictions in the practices followed by the said Thareeqaths
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 22
against the common beliefs and practices of
Islam. Therefore, it could be interpreted as a
statement made with the intention of public good
i.e. the public good as far as the believers of
Islam are concerned. However, still a final
conclusion on the same cannot be taken in a
proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC, as the
ultimate decision could be taken on the basis of
evidence, being a question of fact.
13. Even if it is assumed that, the
statements with reference to the religious
practices followed by Shamseeya Thareeqath were
something which were established to be within
the exception to section 499 IPC, one crucial
aspect to be noticed is that, the statements
referred to in the complaint contains certain
allegations touching upon the personal character
of the persons referred to therein. The
learned counsel for the 1strespondent
specifically highlighted this aspect and the
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 23
said statement referred to by the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent is as follows:
"വിമർശന വിക�യനായ മടെ�ാരു ത്വരീഖ്ᩈ ാണ് ശംസി്ᩞ . ആൻക&ാത് ദ്വീപു�ാരനായ ടെച്ᩘ്ᨾ ി്ᩜ � ആ�ക�ായയാണ് 1962 ഈ ത്വരീഖᩈമായി രംഗ്ᩚ കവശനം ടെച്ᩓ ത്. ഈ താരീ�്വ്ᩈ ിടെ1 ശരിയ്ᩈ് വിരു്ᩍ നീ്ᨪ്ᨲ ടെ5യും ചൂഷണ മകനാഭാവടെ്ᩈ ഴും ല്ᩌ്വ ദ്വീപിടെല പ്ᩄ ിതസഭയായ ജംഇ്ᩞ ᩈ ഹിമായതീസരീ അൽ ഇ്ᩪ ാമിയ അ്ᨪ ാലᩈതടെ@ തുറᩐ �ാ്ᨾിയിരുᩐ. ചി�്ᩜ �നായി ഇ്ᩌ്യ യുടെ� വിവി� ഭാഗ്ᨲ 5ിൽ സ്ᨸ രി്ᨴ ആ�ക്ᨪ ായ �നസ്ᩘ ാദന്ᩈ ിന് �ടെH്ᩈ ിയ കുറുᨪവഴിയായിരുᩐ ത്വരീഖ്ᩈ് . ഇ്ᩞ ാളുടെ� വാചാലതയിൽ പല പാപ്ᩖ ാരും ടെപᨾകപാഴി. ഷംസിയ ത്വരീ�്വതിടെന സംബ്ᩏ ി്ᨴ് ല്ᩌ ദ്വീപിടെല ശരിയ്ᩈ് സംര്ᩌ ണ സമിതിയുടെ� തീരുമാനം ഇ്ᨲ ടെന വായി്ᨪ ാം. ടെച്ᩘ്ᨾ ി്ᩜ ാ� ആ�ക്ᨪ ായയാൽ്ᩝ ാപിതമായതും ഇകSാൾ പുതിയ വീ്ᨾിൽ പൂക്ᨪ ായ കനതൃത്വം വഹിᨪ@തുമായ ഷംസിയ ത്വരീ�്വ്ᩈ് എ@റിയടെSടു@ ാനം താടെഴ പറയു@ �ാരണ്ᨲ 5ാൽ കുഫ്രീയതടെ@ᩐ ടെത5ിവു�ളുടെ� അ�ി്ᩝ ാന്ᩈ ിൽ ഐ�്യ�ക്ᩄ ന തീരുമാനിᨴ. “
14. Thus, a reading of the said statement
would indicate that, it contains certain
personal references about the parties concerned.
Whether the said statements were imputation of
truth is a matter which cannot be decided in a
proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC. In
M.N.Damani’s case (supra), it was observed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as
follows:
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 24
“At this stage, we cannot embark upon
weighing the evidence and come to any
conclusion to hold, whether or not the
allegations made in the complaint constitute
an offence punishable under section 500. It
is the settled legal position of law that a
court has to read the complaint as a whole
and find out whether allegations disclosed
constitute an offence under Section 499
triable by the Magistrate. The Magistrate
prima facie came to the conclusion that the
allegation might come within the definition
of ‘defamation’ under section 499 IPC and
could be taken cognizance of. But these are
facts to be established at the trial. The
cases set up by the appellant are either
defences open to be taken or other steps of
framing a charge at the trial at whatever
stage known to law. Prima facie we think
that at this stage it is not a case
warranting quashing of the complaint filed
in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of 1st
Class at Nasik. To that extent, the High
Court was right in refusing to quash the
complaint under Section 500 IPC.”
15.Moreover, as observed above, apparently,
the contentions raised by the petitioners are to
the effect that they are taking resort to the
exceptions to section 499 of IPC and the same
can only be considered during the course of the
trial as it is beyond the scope of the powers of
this Court under section 482 Cr.PC.
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 25
In such circumstances, I do not find any
merit in this Crl.M.C and accordingly, it is
dismissed. However, it is clarified that, the
observations made in this order were only
intended to find out whether the petitioners
have made out a case for invoking the powers of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Under no
circumstances, the said observations can be
binding on the trial court and the contentions
raised by either parties shall be considered by
the trial court on its merits untrammelled by
any of the above observations.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 26
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1039/2016
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I:TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED
18.12.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC COURT,
MALAPPURAM
ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE THE ARTICLE "THAREEQUA;
CHOOSHAKARKETHIRE ICHASAKTHIYODE" WRITTEN BY SRI. HASSAN T.
KARUVARAKUNDU AND PUBLISHED AT PAGES 663 TO 677 OF THE BOOK
PUBLISHED BY SAMASTHA IN COMMEMORATION OF 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ANNEXURE III:TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 26.02.2015 RECEIVED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS THE 1ST ACCUSED IN
CC.NO.1145/2014 FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
MALAPPURAM.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the published statements about the deceased Thangals constitute fair criticism/truth for public good falling within Section 499 IPC exceptions.
Whether Section 499 IPC exception claims can be adjudicated in a Section 482 Cr.PC quashing proceeding or must await trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan VardeReferred
(2014)3 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai v. State of GujaratReferred
2014(4) KLT SN 26 (C.No.32)SC
Kesava Menon v. BinduReferred
2021(2) KLT 381
G.Narasimhan and Others v. T.V.ChokkappaReferred
AIR 1972 SC 2609 · Who else cites this
M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and OthersRelied on¶14
AIR 2001 SC 2037 · Who else cites this
K.M.Mathew v. K.A.Abraham and Ors.Referred
2002(3)KLT 282(SC)
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraApplied¶11
[2021(3) KLT SN (C.No.3)SC]
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶12
2016(7) SCC 221 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Hassan Faisy
A.V. Abdurahiman Musaliyar
K.T.M. Basheer Master
G.M. Salahudeen Faisy
P.A. Sadhique Faisy
Dr.Hassan Thangal
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court