1. Petitioners are the accused in a pending case on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. That case has arisen on a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons – printer and publisher of a daily and its editor.

2. In the Malayala Manorama daily, in its Kollam Edition, published on 21.08.2008, four photographs over an incident were published, in which, one photograph showed the complainant more or less nude, and, that, publication has caused defamation and harm to him, was the case presented by the complainant to prosecute the printer and publisher and also the editor of the above daily for the offences stated supra. The learned Magistrate, recording the sworn statement of the complainant, ordered summons to the petitioners, the accused persons. Cognizance taken of the offences against them on the complaint is challenged in the petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’.

3. Annexure A is copy of the complaint and Annexure B, copy of the publication in the daily showing the photographs published, one of which is alleged to have defamed and caused loss of reputation to the complainant. The 1st respondent/complainant is an autorickshaw driver. He claims to be the leader of Autorikshaw Drivers Union. In the Malayala Manorama newspaper of Kollam Edition, on 21.08.2008, four photographs depicting a sequence of events which occurred during a strike conducted by the autorickshaw drivers on the previous day, were published. Those photographs published mainly center around the de facto complainant, is not disputed. The 1st respondent/de facto complainant is shown in the first photograph pelting a stone at an autorickshaw, plying through the public road, presumably, discarding the strike call given by his Union. Second photograph shows the complainant throwing yet another stone at the autorickshaw, which, by then, had passed him. The third photograph shows the complainant caught by the police being taken to a police jeep. The fourth photograph shows the de facto complainant being forcefully pulled out from the police jeep by his associates, presumably, striking autorickshaw drivers, and that being prevented by a policeman sitting in the jeep. That photograph shows the complainant suspended horizontally in midair, with his pants partially removed revealing his buttocks bare and naked, while he was being pulled out from the jeep with both his hands held by his associates, and a policeman sitting in the jeep catching hold of his lower limbs preventing his forcible removal. Publication of that photograph has caused loss of reputation to him, his wife and other family members, is his case. His wife is now made fun of by her colleagues and friends asking her to see that the complainant/her husband leave the house only after wearing an undergarment. He is also made fun of by his friends and associates stating that they would purchase an undergarment for him if he has no money. Publication of the four photographs, referred to above, has defamed the complainant and the members of his family, and so much so, the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for the offences imputed, is his case.

4. The question emerging for consideration is whether the publication of photographs, in the circumstances under which they were published, with regard to the sequence of events depicted by such publication, would give rise to criminal act/acts constituting the offences imputed against the petitioners, the publisher and printer and also the editor of the daily. What has been depicted in the four photographs as a sequence of events commencing from the pelting of stones at an autorickshaw plying through the road by the petitioner, and, culminating in the forcible removal of accused from police