The complaint must contain specific and definite defamatory allegations, and press persons should not be dragged into courts without strong specific pleadings.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners are the accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.938/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, for offence punishable under S.499 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner is the editor of Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited, Kozhikode and the second petitioner is an employee of Mathrubhumi daily.

2. First respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She laid a complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, alleging that publication of similar news items by the petitioners in Mathrubhumi daily and the respondents 3 and 4 in Deshabhimani daily, of which, they were the Chief Editor and printer and publisher respectively were defamatory to her. The second respondent is an elected member of the Avanoor Grama Panchayath.

3. According to Annexure-A1 complaint, complainant was the ICDS supervisor of Anganvadis in Avanoor Grama Panchayath. Second respondent herein had submitted a complaint dated 24.10.2014 to the District Collector falsely alleging that there were wide spread irregularities and falsification of records and misappropriation of funds in relation to purchase and disbursement of the food supplied to the students of Anganvadi. It was alleged that the first respondent was responsible for the irregularities and the misappropriation. It was further alleged that Grama Panchayath had resolved to conduct an inspection by a three member committee. They allegedly inspected the Anganvadis and found that food materials of good quality were not supplied to the students. Huge misappropriation of funds were also detected. It was again alleged by the second respondent that on his complaint, food safety authorities had visited the place. They had found that many cereals and pulses were infested with worms. However, the first respondent took them to another store of her choice and drew samples from that store. According to the first respondent, the allegations made by the second respondent in his complaint were absolutely false and made with mala fide intention. He gave wide publicity to his complaint through media, hoardings and flex boards erected at different places. Everybody who knew the first respondent could identify that the allegations referred to the first respondent.

4. As a part of the above, the second respondent also got the news item published in two prominent dailies, Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani. The petitioners herein, without properly enquiring into the genuineness of the allegations and without attempting to find out the truth involved in the allegation, widely published the news item. A copy of the publication by the petitioners was produced as Annexure-A2. It was stated that first respondent informed the petitioners that the news item was false. However, there no correction was issued by the news paper nor they tendered apology for publishing the false news item. It was also stated by the first respondent that the publication was intended to cause damage to the reputation of the complainant, to defame her and to lower her reputation among the public.

5. The court below on the basis of the prima facie materials placed, took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused.

6. Petitioners have approached this court contending that the prosecution is not sustainable. It was contended by the petitioners that the prosecution amounted to abuse of the process of law. They had no intention to lower the dignity or reputation of the first respondent. They had only published truth of the allegations. No mala fide was involved and they had no ill will or malice against the first respondent. They prayed to quash the proceedings.

7. Supporting the complaint, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that there were prima facie materials available on record, which prompted the court below to take cognizance of offence. Summons was accordingly issued. The petitioners have