VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DATED this the 24th day of January, 2012 Order The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure A5 complaint and the action initiated by the learned Magistrate pursuant thereto. That complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 500 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent was ousted from the Sangham of which the petitioner was the Secretary. The complainant was also the Secretary of that Sangham. It is stated that the accounts of that Sangham were audited and irregularities were noticed by the audit party. Hence show cause notice was issued by the Sangham represented by the Secretary (the petitioner herein) to the second respondent. Again an additional charge memo was also issued to the 2nd respondent. The allegation is that those show cause notice and charge memos were circulated among the friends of the complainant and so the act of the petitioner herein defamed the complainant -R2 in the eye of the public and thus the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of a charge memo or additional charge memo or show cause notice based on the irregularities found out in the audit cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a complaint alleging defamation since the act of the petitioner herein as the Secretary of the Sangham was well within the power of the Sangham and that it would fall under one or more of the exceptions mentioned in Section 499 IPC. But the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that whether the act of the petitioner would come under any of the exceptions as contended by him is not a matter to be probed into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether the charge memo which was stated to have been circulated would attract the offence of defamation or whether the act complained of would come under one or more of the exceptions under Section 499 IPC is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all those contentions, this Crl. M.C. may have to be rejected.