T.T. KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. is the petitioner herein who seeks leave of this Court to file an appeal against the judgment dated 27/07/2012 in C.C.No.838 of 2008 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Perumbavoor by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that, he is a social worker and involved in various social activities and he has got good reputation in the society and among the general public. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused is a neighbour, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.267 of 2000 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor in which one Mathai and Paulose were defendants. According to the complainant, he was examined as one of the witnesses for the defendants as DW.2 in that case and the said suit was finally heard on 02/12/2006 and one Advocate Mr.Balachandran, who is examined as PW.2 in the present case, was appearing for the plaintiff therein. According to the complainant when PW.2 argued the above civil case at about 12.15 p.m. on 02/12/2006 and during the course of argument among others, he had made the following remarks. "It can be seen from deposition of DW.1 and DW.2 that DW.2 is the master brain behind all these disputes and he is trying to wreak vengeance against PW.1-who participate in a church proceeding against DW.2's illicit connection with the one Annakkutty". It is also the case of the complainant that PW.2 submitted an argument note containing the very same remarks against DW.2. As I indicated earlier, DW.2 is none other than the complainant in the present case. According to the complainant, the remarks made by PW.1 during the course of the argument in the above mentioned civil suit is per se defamatory and the same was made with a view to tarnish the reputation of the complainant and the same was made as instructed by the accused and therefore the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner.