Point of Law: Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads defamation.

ORDER :

The petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the private complaint and all further proceedings in C.C.No.700/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-I, Kannur. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3355/2015 is the first accused, and petitioners in Crl. M.C.No.727/2015 are the accused 2 and 3 in the above complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that the petitioners and two others (accused 4 and 5) have committed the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. As the parties are the same, the petitions were consolidated and jointly heard, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to, wherever the context so requires, as per their status in the complaint. The relevant facts:

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a two-time member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the present Secretary of the Kannur District Committee of the Communist Party of India. The first accused is an MLA representing the Azhikode Constituency in Kannur and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Managing Editor and the Printer cum Publisher of the Malayala Manorama Daily, and the accused 4 and 5 are the Editor and Printer cum Publisher of Chandrika Daily. The accused 2 to 5 publish daily newspapers in Malayalam, which have a wide circulation. On 8.10.2012, both newspapers published an abridged version of the statement made by the first accused in a press conference held in Kannur on the previous day. The first accused, with a clear intention of harming the complainant, made unfounded and unwarranted insinuations that the complainant was responsible for the death of one Sareesh and that the death toll in the Shukoor murder case would rise if the complainant and other leaders were permitted to go scot-free, taking benefit of a minor offence under Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). The first accused had described the complainant as a serial killer with a clear intention to harm him. The accused 2 to 5 gave comprehensive coverage to the defamatory insinuations through their newspapers, causing grave injury to the complainant. Therefore, they share the culpability with the first accused on an equal basis, and all the accused are liable to be punished under Section 500, read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. After recording the statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, registered the above case and issued process to the accused.

4. It is assailing the cognizance and further proceedings the present petitions are filed.

5. The cardinal contention of the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 in the Crl.MCs is that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the mere causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character is not an offence under the IPC. The complaint infringes the petitioners’ fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, the complaint is to be quashed.

6. Heard; Sri.Babu.S.Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.3355/2015/first accused and Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.727/2015/accused 2 and 3; and Dr.Sebastian Paul, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent – State.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in tandem argued that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the alleged offence or make out a case against the accus