Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
The Malayala Manoram Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M.M.Lawrence, S/o.Mathew (Late) – Respondent
Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016
Decided on : 06-03-2020
defamation - quashing of proceedings - Section 500 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The cases involved two defamation cases filed against a publication company and its office bearers for publishing defamatory statements about the complainant, a politician, in their respective publications. The accused sought to quash the proceedings, claiming no intentional act to defame the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the complainant and the 5th accused, whose interview was published, was settled out of court. The court also held that the publications were not made with any malafide intention to tarnish the complainant's image. It cited legal precedents to support the view that no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out if the publication is not with malafide intention.
Issues: The key issue was whether the publications were made with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and if the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of the court's process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the settlement between the complainant and the 5th accused, the lack of malafide intention in the publications, and legal precedents establishing the requirement of malafide intention for defamation under Section 500 IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions to quash the proceedings, stating that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of the court's process, especially in the light of the settlement between the complainant and the 5th accused.
ORDER :
The above two cases are filed to quash two defamation cases, in which the complainant and 5th accused are common. Complainant is a nonagenarian and the 5th accused is centenarian. Complainant and the 5th accused are politicians.
2. An interview of the 5th accused came in the publication of the Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. and Janasakthi weekly. According to the complainant, certain portion of the interview published by Malayala Manorama and Janasakthi weekly are defamatory to him and hence he filed two complaints as C.C.No. 61 of 2011 against Janasakthi weekly and C.C.No.62 of 2011 was filed against the Malayala Manorama Company. Both cases are filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC. Since the complainant is common and the issue to be decided is also common, I dispose these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases by a common judgment.
3. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.62 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No. 61 of 2011.
4. In Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013, the allegation is that, an article was printed and published by the petitioners therein in the Malayala Manorama weekly 2009 vol.19 book No.19 in page 22 under the caption 'Atmakatha'. It was the Malayala Manorama Weekly Annual 2009, published in connection with the Onam celebration in September 2009. In that article, with a separate sub heading, certain passage has been published and according to the complainant, the imputations are about him and the same are false and incorrect. According to the complainant, the same is per se defamatory. The relevant portion of the article relied by the complainant is extracted here under:
xxx xxx xxx
5. According to the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 4 have printed and published the same with malafide intention and without taking due care and caution. According to the complainant, the aforesaid allegations are made and published with the intention to tarnish the image of the complainant.
6. Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 was filed by the Janasakthi weekly, its Printer, Publisher, Managing Editor etc to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The above case was filed by the complainant against the Janasakthi weekly and its office bearers for an article published in the Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication 2009. An article was printed and published by accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.61 of 2011 in Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication, 2009 dated 20.8.2009 in connection with the Onam celebration in September, 2009. In that article also with a sub heading the following statements are published.
Xxx xxx xx
7. According to the complainant, the accused in the case published and circulated the same with the common intention of defaming the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 500 IPC.
8. The accused in both cases want to quash the proceedings contending that, there is no intentional act on the part of them to defame the complainant and it is only an interview of the 5th accused in both cases, which is being published by the petitioners in their publication. Moreover, they also contended that, a reading of the imputations alleged to be against the complainant, the same will not amount to an offence under Section 500 IPC. Hence, they wanted to quash the proceedings pending before the lower court.
9. Heard the senior counsel K.P.Dandapani for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.2044 of 2013 and Adv.P.Sanjay for the petitioners in Crl.M.CNo.1549 of 2016. Advocate Rajan Babu appeared for the 5th accused who are arrayed as 5th respondent in both the cases. Heard Adv.T.D.Robbin for the complainant.
10. It is conceded before this court at the time of argument that, the dispute between the complainant and 5th accuse
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
