DAVID JOHN Vs. JOSE MOOTHEDAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in CC 1502/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy. This Criminal Miscelleneous Case is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the entire proceedings in the above case. It is a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging offence punishable u/s.499 and 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.C.No.1502/2017.

(2.) Allegation in Annexure-A1 complaint in brief is that, on 5.7.2016, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Thrissur. That complaint was filed to take action by the District Collector, Thrissur who is also the District Rifle Association President to cancel the arms license issued to the 1 st respondent and some others. In that complaint, it is stated that the 1st respondent misrepresented to the District Collector that, he is a participant in shooting championship at Delhi and hence, he may be granted exemption from depositing the arms during the Kerala Assembly Election 2016. In the letter, it is stated by the petitioner that, during the period for which exemption was requested for surrendering the arms, no competition is scheduled in New Delhi. It is also stated in the letter that, only two out of six people have participated in the shooting competition at New Delhi. Hence, the petitioner requested the licensing authority to terminate the arms license and initiate prosecution against the 1 st respondent and others who misrepresented before the District Collector. According to the 1st respondent, his application for the license of sports weapon to be added with his license was pending before the District Collector at that time and his signature alone was necessary. At that stage, on 5.7.2016 the complaint was filed by the petitioner to the District Collector. According to the 1st respondent, such an application was filed with an intention to restrict him in participating in shooting events and the complaint is filed with the knowledge that, if such a complaint is filed, the arms license of the 1st respondent will be cancelled and criminal case will be initiated against him. In nutshell, the allegation is that the complaint filed by the petitioner to the District Collector, Thrissur is defamatory to the 1 st respondent and knowing about the same, several persons contacted the 1 st respondent and informed that, they never believed that the 1 st respondent will act like this. According to the 1 st respondent, the impression about the 1st respondent is decreased to the above persons because of the above complaint. The complaint filed by the petitioner to the District Collector is produced as Annexure-A3 by the petitioner. The letter is extracted hereunder:

(3.) Based on Annexure-A3 letter, the complaint was filed by the 1st respondent and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same under Sect.499 and 500 IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner wants to quash Annexure-A1 complaint. The defamation is defined in Section 499 IPC. Section 499 IPC is extracted here under.