PRASAD LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint in C.C. No.85/02 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The 1st accused in C.C.No.85/02 is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.8263/02 while accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.8100/02. The case arose on a compliant filed by Shri M.T.Vasudevan Nair against the accused alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that Shri M.V.Devan, the 1st accused made some defamatory statements about Shri M.T.Vasudevan Nair (the complainant) regarding a Malayalam Novel Varanasi written by him. The defamatory statements said to have been made by the 1st accused were published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 1-6-2002 and also in Mathrubhumi daily. The further allegation is that the complainant received information that the above defamatory statements were published in Kala Kaumudi Daily Edition, Mumbai on 12-5-2002. The first accused is alleged to have made statement to give an impression to the public that right from the beginning the complainant is a Plagiarist bereft of originality.

(2.) After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and perusing the records, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Shri M.V.Devan, in obedience to the summons appeared before the court and he was released on bail. Accused 2 to 5 did not appear in person, but entered appearance through their counsel. Alleging that the complaint is a sheer abuse of the process of the court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the accused have come up with these petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that the lower court should not have taken cognizance of the offences since the allegations in the complaint do not disclose the commission of the offences. They further contended that the court below has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since there was no publication of the defamatory statements within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent strongly contended that the order of the lower court taking cognizance of the offence is clearly sustainable and the complaint is not liable to the quashed under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C.