SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
Dr. Joy Anto S/o Antony – Petitioner
Versus
C.R. Jaison S/o Rappai – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 534 of 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Sreekumar, Sri. P. Martin Jose, Sri. M.A. Mohammed Siraj, Sri. P. Prijith, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla.
For the Respondents: Smt. Mitha Sudhindran, Sri. V.C. Sarath, Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, Sri. S. Sreekumar.

Point of Law: Essence of publication in the context of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is the communication of the defamatory imputation to persons other than the person against whom the imputation is made.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 482 and 500 - Offence of defamation - Sought for quash of Criminal complaint - Petitioner was a Professor in College he was Chairman of company - Complainant was Deputy Chairman and a Legal Advisor of company - Company had engaged complainant to institute suits for realisation of money due from subscribers to kuries conducted by it - There was an allegation that he did not institute suits after receiving money from company towards expenses in that regard. Subsequently, complainant resigned from post of Deputy Chairman of company - Whether petitioner is entitled to get benefit of any of exceptions provided to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Finding of the court: Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Constitution - But, all fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions - Section 499 of Indian Penal Code does not give absolute privilege to statements made in a Court of law in judicial proceedings - Privileges recognised under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code are qualified - However, in a civil action for defamation, plea of absolute privilege is a valid defence.

Result: Petition is dismissed

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case S.T. No. 1877/2015 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.

2. The aforesaid case is one instituted upon the complaint (Annexure-K) filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to also as ‘the complainant’). The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner was a Professor in the St. Thomas College, Thrissur. He was the Chairman of the company by name M/s. Cherupushpam Kuries (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’). The complainant was the Deputy Chairman and a Legal Advisor of the company.

4. The company had engaged the complainant to institute suits for realisation of money due from the subscribers to the kuries conducted by it. There was an allegation that he did not institute the suits after receiving money from the company towards the expenses in that regard. Subsequently, the complainant resigned from the post of the Deputy Chairman of the company.

5. While so, one K.K. Ramadas, who is a lawyer, filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 5239/2013] before this Court against the University of Calicut and the petitioner and some other persons. Suffice it to state here that the writ petition was filed for issuing directions with regard to the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner on the allegation that while working as a Senior Lecturer in the St. Thomas College he had also engaged in the business activities of the company.

6. The allegation in Annexure-K complaint is that, in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5239/2013, he had stated that the writ petitioner was an associate of Adv. C.R. Jaison (the complainant) who was the former Director and Legal Advisor of the company and he (Adv. C.R. Jaison) was removed from the company on proved misconduct and misappropriation of the funds of the company. It is also alleged in Annexure-K complaint that in the Directors' Report contained in the 30th annual report of the company it was mentioned that the complainant resigned from the company on account of dereliction of duty in conducting the cases for and on behalf of the company.

7. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused for quashing Annexure-K complaint and all proceedings against him pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur based on the complaint.

8. Heard learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner and also the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(1) The statements made about the complainant in the annual report of the company and the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the writ petition are not defamatory in nature.

(2) Making a statement in the counter affidavit filed in a writ petition before this Court does not amount to publication.

(3) No criminal liability would arise on making any defamatory statement in a judicial proceeding before a court of law.

(4) The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the fifth and the eighth exceptions provided to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. The offence of defamation is defined under Section 499 and it is made punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code provides 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, except in cases where the exceptions are provided, to defame that person.

12. Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 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, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top