Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
Manuja Mythri, W/o. Sinto Thomas - Petitioner
Versus
Adv. T.K. Ajan & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. MC No. 7466 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2024
For the Petitioner: Akash S., Girish Kumar M.S., V.S. Varalekshmi, Neethu S.
For the Respondent: T.K. Ajan(Party-In-Person), Sri. Vipin Narayanan, Senior Public Prosecutor.
The requirement for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the facts and statements before issuing summons, as mandated by Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C, is crucial in ensuring fair and just proceedings.
Headnote:
Defamation - Jurisdictional Limits - Section 500 IPC - Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C - Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [2015 KHC 2763], Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another [2017 KHC 6029]
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an award winning journalist, sought to quash proceedings in a defamation case filed against her for posting a video on her YouTube channel. The court found that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind before issuing summons to the accused, as required under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the proceedings of the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses.
Issues: Jurisdictional limits, application of mind by the Magistrate, sufficiency of indication in the order issuing summons
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the facts and statements before issuing summons, as mandated by Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C, citing Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [2015 KHC 2763] and Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another [2017 KHC 6029].
Final Decision: The proceedings of the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused were set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.
ORDER :
This petition is at the instance of the accused in ST No.200 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagapally, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings in that case.
2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent filed a private complaint against her alleging an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC, making false and untenable allegations of defamation. The petitioner is an award winning journalist. She posted a video in her YouTube Channel by name ‘Kolambi’ about Amritanandamayi and about the mysterious deaths occurred in her Ashram. That video was based on various books and publications by different authors, and she did not add anything more, on her own. She would say that, the allegations in the complaint or the statement of witnesses in the enquiry were not sufficient to bring home an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC against her. The 1st respondent failed to show a prima facie case as to how he was defamed by that YouTube video posted by her. So, her prayer is to quash the proceedings in ST No.200 of 2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and also the 1st respondent/complainant who appeared as a party in person.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the accused was residing at a place beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate was exercising his jurisdiction, an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C was mandatory. The petitioner/accused was staying at Kothamangalam outside the jurisdictional limits of JFCM-I, Karunagapally.
5. On going through the proceedings in CMP No.2950 of 2020, it could be seen that the complaint was presented before the Magistrate Court on 30.12.2020 and on that day, complainant or his witnesses were not examined and no cognizance was taken. So, the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process, for conducting 202 enquiry. On 25.11.2021, complainant and two witnesses were present and enquiry was conducted. On 22.02.2022, another witness was present and enquiry was completed and the CMP was posted for hearing to 19.03.2022. So, obviously, enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C was conducted by the learned Magistrate himself, without directing an investigation by a police officer or by such other person.
6. After hearing, learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused as per proceedings dated 19.03.2022, which reads as follows :
“Complainant present, heard. I am satisfied that there are prima facie case under Section 500 IPC. Case taken on file as ST 200/22. Issue summons by registered post”.
7. True that a detailed order is not warranted while taking cognizance and issuing summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. But the proceedings must show that, learned Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, to find that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
8. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [2015 KHC 2763], the Apex Court observed that, the steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C followed by Section 204 of Cr.P.C should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements.
9. Paragraph 23 of that judgment reads thus :
“23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under S.190(1)(a) of CrPC followed by S.204 of CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the Court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the Court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure
