RAM Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking to quash Annexure A complaint in S.T. No. 3 of 2017 and Annexure B order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, issued to the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, the publication per se in not defamatory and the petitioners are not responsible for the publication of the said news article and therefore, they are innocent of the allegations levelled as against them.

(2.) The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 25, 23 and 24 respectively in S.T. No. 3 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the alleged offences punishable under S. 120-B and 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners prefer these petitions being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in S.T. No. 3 of 2017, in taking cognizance as against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. Annexure A is the copy of the complaint in S.T. No. 3 of 2017. True copy of the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 4139/2017 is produced as Annexure B. The first respondent/complainant has preferred a criminal complaint in S.T. No. 3 of 2017 under Ss. 190(1)(a) and 199 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and other accused persons for publication of a defamatory news item dated 20.10.2016 in the National English newspaper daily, "The Hindu" titled "Sebastian Paul flays lawyers". The 2nd respondent had, on 20.10.2016, made a public speech at Thrissur, which according to the first respondent is defamatory to the lawyer community and the same was published in print media by the petitioners' employer, who is accused No. 23. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the first respondent, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the petitioners and others by registering the complaint as S.T. No. 3 of 2017 on its file. According to the petitioners, the publication is not per se defamatory as the article published was merely a reproduction of the speech of accused No. 1. The first respondent/complainant has failed to make any specific allegation against the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2087 of 2018, who is the 25th accused, that in what manner, he is responsible for selecting and publishing the said news article. The Magistrate had, based on the allegations made in the complaint and also relying on the solemn affirmation of the complainant, taken cognizance of the offences against the 25th accused, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2087 of 2018, and others for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above Crl.M.Cs on the grounds; that the first respondent/complainant has no locus-standi to prefer a complaint against the 25th accused, since there is nothing personal as against the first respondent, and that the first respondent cannot be treated as an aggrieved person as per S. 199 of the Cr.P.C.; to prefer a complaint for defamation. The continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioners is unnecessary as there is no materials brought as per the complaint to take cognizance against the petitioners. Therefore, they pray for quashing the entire proceedings pending against them.

(3.) I have heard Sri. K.P. Dandapani, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor, apart from perusing the record.