1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

2. Accused in C.C.No.27 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba seeks quashment of Annexure-A1 complaint. Complainant is the 2nd respondent in this proceedings. Petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The averments in AnnexureA1 complaint would show that some observations in Annexure-A2 letter sent by the petitioner were highly objectionable to the complainant and he alleged that they are per se defamatory. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder:

"1965 BSc Engg Madras Rs.500/- ? Bsc-BEd

,

?

"

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of Annexure-A2 in its entirety will show that the purport of the letter was to request the elder brother to settle family disputes. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that indiscretion in choosing words and narrating past incidents in the letter in a false and figurative manner will make the letter defamatory. Section 499 IPC defines 'defamation' in the following words:

"Defamation.-whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

The Section is having four explanations and ten exceptions. The explanations amplify the scope of the Section whereas the exceptions take out certain things out of application of the Section. In order to constitute an offence of defamation, the essential ingredient is to make an imputation, concerning any person, with an intention to harm or with a knowledge or reason that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. An imputation without an intention to harm or without knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of such person will not constitute an offence of defamation. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Mammen Mathew v. Radhakrishnan (2007 (4) KLT 833) has considered the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence of defamation. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"The offence of defamation consists of three essential ingredients, namely,

(1) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person

(2) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations and

(3) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

(Vide Sunilakhya Chowdhury v. H.M. Jadwet & Anr. (AIR 1968 Cal. 266). Thus, the mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation ha