This is a petition filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No.424/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.).

2. The case of the petitioner in the petition was as follows : Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No.424/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. Annexure A complaint in CC No.424/2010 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), on the allegation that the imputations contained in Annexure B news item caused defamation to the complainant and to the tribal community, to which he allegedly belong.

3. Annexure B news item contains only the opinions and allegations of the office bearers of Democratic Women Association, to conduct a survey and enquiry into the Tribal area of Aaralam, pursuant to which, they filed Annexure C complaint before the Kerala Human Rights Commission.

4. The imputations in Annexure B news item are supported by truth. The news item was published in good faith and for public interest. The petitioners had no ill-will or malice towards the complainant or anybody in the tribal community. The news item does not contain any reference regarding the complainant, so as to enable him to raise a claim that he had suffered defamation on account of the publication of Annexure- B news item. The complainant cannot initiate and continue the prosecution, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, claiming that the publication caused defamation to the community, to which he allegedly belong.

5. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are not responsible for the selection, editing, printing and publication of the news item in the Malayala Manorama daily and they are not liable for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure A complaint and further proceedings in CC No.424/2010 are abuse of the process of law and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Hence the Criminal M.C.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the complainant in Annexure A complaint is not an aggrieved person, having locus standi to file a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, representing the class of persons alleged to have been defamed on account of Annexure B paper publication. Further, in order to attract Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC for initiating an action for class defamation, the class so affected must be determinable and identifiable and if a general allegation is made against a class of persons, which is having indefinite number, then, no action for class defamation can be initiated. In this case, Annexure B publication will go to show that it relates to an incident happened in a tribal colony and it relates to a class, which cannot be determined or identified. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 500 of IPC is attracted and there is no need to proceed with the complaint as it is an abuse of the process of law. Further, even assuming that it will amount to class defamation, though not admitted, it is done in public interest and good faith, which is a defence available under the section for the publisher and as such, there is no possibility of convicting the petitioners and proceeding with the case is a futile attempt. On the above grounds, the petitioners prayed for allowing the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions reported in Mathew v. Balan (1984 KLT 893) and Ram v. Siby Mathew (2000(2) KLT 366).

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent would argue that there are necessary allegations made in the complaint, which will prima facie show that the complaint is maintainable. Further, the complainant, being a member of the class, whic