In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the Editor of Malayala Manorama, Kottayam, seeks to quash Annexure-A complaint dated 15-3-2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Mannarkkadu and all further proceedings in C.C. 1/2006 on the file of the above said Magistrate. The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein (M.N. Radhakrishnan) alleging the commission of an offence under Sec. 499 I.P.C. and punishable under Sec. 500 I.P.C.

The Complaint

2. The averments in the above private complaint a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A can be summarised as follows:-

The complainant is the Manager of the Mannarkkad Branch of United India Insurance Company Limited. He was on leave for the period between 11/4/2005 and 24-4-2005 and 26-04-2005 and 6-5-2005. At the time of entering on leave the complainant had, as usual, entrusted the keys of the branch office with the Senior Assistant. While the complainant was on leave as aforesaid a news item was published in the Malayala Manoarama daily dated 27-4-2005 of which the first accused the Editor responsible for selection of news under the Press and Registration of Books Act. The said news item read as follows:

The above news item is absolutely baseless and has been falsely created. The above news has the sure tendency of causing extreme mental agony and humiliation to the complainant. It has the effect of lowering the reputation of the complainant among the public, among the policy holders of the company and among his co-workers. The complainant was not gheravoed by the employees as alleged in the news item. The complainant has absolutely nothing to do with the news that the computer system in the office had been corrupted. During that period the complainant was on leave. The further statements in the news item that the complainant had committed irregularities in the account and had defalcated the agency commission etc. are absolutely false and calculated to humiliate the complainant. On reading the news which proceeds to say that employees by name Madhukishore, Nandakumar, Ramu and Muraleekrishnan etc. were giving leadership and that the employees alleged that during the period in which the complainant was on leave, he had come to the office and corrupted the computer installed therein, the complainant issued lawyer notice to all the aforementioned employees. The complainant had also informed the Malayala Manorama that the aforementioned news item was false and had demanded the Malayala Manorama to apologise for the false news published in their daily and to make amends by publishing another news item to the effect that the offending news was untrue. Except the 2nd accused (Ramu) the other three employees sent replies to the effect that they had absolutely no role to play in the publication of the offending news item and that the Malayala Manorama daily dated 27-4-2005 had published another news item to the effect that the employees had not gheravoed the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant caused lawyer notice to be issued to the first accused Editor calling upon him to insert an apology in the front page of Malayala Manoarama to the effect that the news item published on 9-6-2005 was published without any basis and tendering apology to the complainant. But the first accused caused a reply to be sent stating that the news item was published on the basis of information received from reliable sources and at the time when the incident referred to in the news item took place, the reporter of Malayala Manorama was present, that the news item was published in good faith and in public interest, that pursuant to the news item the complainant had contacted the Palakkad Bureau of Manorama and that in the daily dated 28-4-2005 the protest voiced by the complainant was also published. Even though the complainant had informed the first accused that the news item contained false and unfounded allegations inserted without t