IMPORTANT POINTS
Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of any of the exceptions provided to Section 499 I.P.C, whether he had made the statements in the writ petition in good faith for protection of his interest etc. are matters which cannot be decided by this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ordinarily, the question as to whether the statement in a given case falls under any of the ten exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C will have to be decided only after trial and the burden to bring the libel or slander under any of those exceptions is, by virtue of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the accused.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the sole accused in the case C.C.No.119/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

2. The aforesaid case is one instituted upon the complaint filed against the petitioner by the second respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, he is accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. However, the petitioner has not produced copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint filed against him by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant').

4. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the complaint filed against the petitioner. The material averments in Annexure-A1 complaint are as follows:

The accused filed W.P.(C) No.12448/2018 before this Court seeking police protection against certain persons who were accused in the case which was registered as Crime No.472/2018 of Nooranad police station. In the aforesaid writ petition, the complainant was arrayed as the seventh respondent. There were various allegations and imputations made against the complainant in the aforesaid writ petition which are extracted in the complaint. Such statements made about the complainant in the writ petition filed by the accused are defamatory and the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. On 09.04.2018, the accused made a visit to the hotel in which the complainant was residing. The accused met the Manager of the hotel and made statements defamatory to the complainant to him in front of the staff and the customers of the hotel. The accused told the Manager of the hotel that the complainant is the kingpin who is arranging contract killers. Such imputation was made by the accused intentionally with the knowledge that the goodwill and reputation of the complainant would be put to danger. The accused has caused irreparable injury to the prestige and reputation of the complainant by making the defamatory statements.

5. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing Annexure-A1 complaint and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to that complaint.

6. Notice was served on the second respondent but he has not chosen to make appearance in this petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the averments in Annexure-A1 complaint do not attract the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the averments and the statements in the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the complainant enjoy absolute privilege and on the basis of those statements, no complaint for an offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C is maintainable.

8. Section 499 I.P.C states that, 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 to defame that person. Four explanations and ten exceptions are also provided to this provision.

9. Under Section 499 I.P.C, in order that an offence of defamation may be committed, there must be making or publication of any imputation concerning any person by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. To constitute the offence of defamation there must therefore be making or publication of an imputation concerning any person and the making or publication must be with intent to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. Unless there is publication there can be no commission of an offence of defamation.

10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the complainant contained a statement that, t