LAWS(KER)-2005-9-8

M P RAJU Vs. T G CHACKO

Decided On September 05, 2005
MADHYA PRADESHRAJU Appellant
V/S
T.G.CHACKO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the sweep of the expression 'family or other near relatives' in Explanation-I of Section 499 IPC In the absence of intention to be hurtful to the feelings of 'family or other near relatives' is the mere knowledge that the defamatory publication would be hurtful to them sufficient to bring the conduct within the sweep of culpability under Section 499 IPC Does Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'the Act') apply at all to a publisher These interesting questions of importance, on which no binding precedents are shown to exist, arise for consideration in this case.

(2.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 to 14 in a prosecution initiated against them by the 1st respondent herein by filing a private complaint. Respondents 3 to 5 are the co-accused in the said crime. Altogether there are 15 accused. The accused persons face allegations of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 500 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act.

(3.) Proceedings were initiated against the accused on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant/1st respondent. The crux of the allegations is that accused 1 to 14 got printed a book titled "Brief History of St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Venmany". The said book was printed by the 15th accused who runs a press. It is alleged that the said publication does not conform to the stipulations in Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 in that, necessary details about the printer, publisher and the places of printing/publication are not printed in the said book. It is further alleged that there are certain imputations in page 8 of the said book which are defamatory to one Korula Chacko. The said publication, it is further alleged, is defamatory to the petitioner, his predecessors and successors. The learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come before this Court to quash the proceedings.