MAMMEN MATHEW Vs. KUNIEL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby taking exception to the act of the learned Magistrate to issue process against him for of fences punishable under Section 500, IPC in context with the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, the complainant. Shri Desai, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the imputation as alleged in the complaint is not at all defamatory and a reading of it indicates that the provisions of section 500 of IPC cannot be attracted. On that count, according to him, the complaint should have been dismissed by the Magistrate refusing to take the cognizance.

(2.) HE placed reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court (1) K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 88 : (1992 Cri LJ 3779) and (2) Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2117 : (1998 Cri LJ 2928 ). Relying on K. M. Mathew v. State of kerala (supra), Shri Desai submitted that the Chief Editor cannot be held responsible for the item published in the newspaper and, therefore, on this ground the learned Magistrate should have refused to take cognizance of the complaint of respondent No. 1. He sought the support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Darda's case (supra ).

(3.) MR. Dhakephalkar appearing for Respondent No. 1 read out the complaint, more particularly, paragraph No. 7 of it wherein a specific allegation has been made by the present petitioner that the said matter has been published in the said newspaper at the instance of all the accused and their active collusion with accused No. 1, the present petitioner. The complainant the present respondent No. 1 has alleged that the said matter was deliberately printed in Malayala manorama daily. Therefore, according to shri Dhakephalkar, Chief Editor, the present petitioner, cannot be exonerated without there being judicial application of mind of the trial Court on these issues. He submitted that the petitioner should have submitted an application before the trial Court and should have sought an adjudication on the point involved. But instead of doing that, the petitioner has approached the High court directly and, therefore, on that count, the petition is fit to be dismissed.