What is the sweep of the expression ‘family or other near relatives’ in Explanatnion-1 of Sec.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 Sec.499 IPC? Does Sec.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 offence punishable under Secs.120B and 500 of the IPC and Secs.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 Sec.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.

4. The dictum in the decision reported in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992) 1 SCC 217) is no more valid law in the light of the decision reported in Adalat Prasath v. Rooplal Jendal (2004) 7 SCC 338) and in these circumstances, the petitioners pray that the proceedings against them may be quashed by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. What are the reasons? First of all, it is contended that there is no imputation in page 8 of the publication in question which can be said to be defamatory to deceased Korula Chacko. It is further contended that, at any rate, the complainant is not even alleged to be a member of the family or other near relative of the said Korula Chacko. Publication is not intended to be hurtful to the feelings of the family or other near relatives of the said Korula Chacko. In these circumstances, the prosecution is liable to quashed, it is urged.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that the prosecution under the provisions of Sec.3 read with Sec.12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is not maintainable on the averments made in the complaint, as Sec.12 is not intended to make any publisher liable. Relying on the decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Hakim v. State (AIR 1960 Allahabad 450), it is contended that Sec.3 read with Sec.12 of the Act cannot attract culpability against any publisher.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the 1st respondent. I shall first consider the maintainability of the prosecution for defamation.

8. The precise allegations appear in page 8 of the publication in question. It reads as followed when translated:

“In these circumstances, the reformist thinker became a majority and those who faithfully stuck to the faith of the Antioch became a minority. When obstruction resulted for service etc., of this minority of Jacobite believers, they joined together and contemplated further actio