SAFFIYA HANEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 170 of 1993 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. That is a complaint filed by 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence by petitioner under S.499 IPC punishable under S.500. Petitioner is alleged to have sent a letter to 2nd respondent containing defamatory remarks. Since 2nd respondent has poor eye sight, the letter was taken to another person who published the contents to several persons whereby the reputation of 2nd respondent is alleged to have been lowered. Petitioner seeks to quash that complaint on various grounds.

(2.) Heard counsel for petitioner and 2nd respondent.

(3.) The defamatory remarks are alleged to have been made in a letter sent to 2nd respondent by petitioner from Ernakulam. Though the letter purports to be one sent by petitioner, it does not contain any signature. The description of petitioner finds a place therein. But it is not clear from which place the letter was sent. The cover in which the letter is alleged to have been sent was not produced. The letter does not contain the seal of the post office. What has been produced along with the complaint is only an unsigned letter alleged to have been sent by petitioner to 2nd respondent. There is no indication in the letter to show that it was sent by petitioner herself or that it was sent to 2nd respondent. Though such an inference can be drawn from a reading of the letter, that by itself is not sufficient to connect petitioner with the letter produced along with the complaint.