IMPORTANT POINT
If an editor of a grade different from the editor under the statute is prosecuted, there is no presumption that he is the person put in control of selecting the matter for publication. In other words, without necessary allegation that he was in control of the selection process of news items, a prosecution against an editor belonging to such different category may not be lawful.

ORDER :

The petitioners are the editor and printer cum publisher of Mathrubhoomi Daily Newspaper published from Kozhikode. They are respectively third and the fourth accused in C.C.No.2060/2014 instituted on Annexure-1 private complaint before JFCM Court, North Parur, by the first respondent for commission of offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 r/w Section 34 IPC. They seek to quash the complaint invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The first accused in the complaint is the sitting MLA of Parur constituency. The first respondent was the former MLA of the same constituency. The allegation against the first accused is that he, with a view to replying to a criticism made against him, convened a press conference on 10.11.2012 at 10 AM, in which the petitioners and many from public participated and the first accused circulated a press release containing certain imputations against the first respondent.

3. The statement made in the press release, according to the first respondent, is humiliating and has lowered his reputation among the public. It contained an imputation that the first respondent always stood for the cause of the affluent and the abkari people acting as their loyal agent during his tenure as MLA. The first accused further claimed that if first respondent dared to criticise him who stands for the poor and the ordinary, the electorate will realise the truth in no unmistakable terms. He is also stated to have made a sarcastic remark that people also knew as to why and at whose complaint, the first respondent was expelled from the political party newspaper JANAYUGOM.

4. The first respondent denied the imputations made against him as false and claimed them to be defamatory and affecting his reputation in the society. According to him, the statements were intended to wreak political vengeance and lower his status in the estimation of right thinking members of the public. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they, with the knowledge that the imputation amounted to defamation, edited, printed and published the statement and committed the above offences.

5. During the pendency of this proceeding, the second petitioner who is the printer cum publisher was reported dead and consequently the prosecution as against him stood abated.

6. What survives is the limited question as to whether prosecution of the first petitioner who is the editor of the news daily, could be assailed as illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of law.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the press release was published as such without any distortion or additions and in exercise of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of thought guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the publication was made only in good faith and further Annexure-1 complaint does not contain any allegation that the petitioners have acted with any malafides. Another contention is that the contents in the press release were not reproduced in the complaint and in its absence, the accused are left in the dark without knowledge of the accusation made against them and the complaint is defective for this sole reason. In this respect, a decision reported in Konath Madhavi Amma v. S.M. Sherief & Ors. (1985 KLJ 317) was relied on. Yet another argument is that if the impugned imputation is read in the context in which it came to be made, it is no way a defamatory statement at all. Finally, it was argued that since there is no allegation in the complaint that the first petitioner was responsible for selecting the news item for publication, the complaint is defective and it is liable to be quashed. In this respect, decisions reported in V.S. Achuthanandan v. G. Kamalamma & Ors. (2008 (3) KLT 346) and Mamman Mathew v. Radhakrishnan M. N. (2007 (4) KLT 833) were cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the peti