IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the person concerned, as essential ingredients of the offence of defamation under Section 499 of IPC.

ORDER :

These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in S.T. No.4540 of 2017 (originally referred in these cases as S.T. No.4540 of 2019 and subsequently corrected) on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.16 and 17 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Though, notice was served to the 2nd respondent, she did not appear. Perused the relevant documents including the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that the accused No.16, who is the editor and accused No.17, who is the printer and publisher of Madhyamam daily published a news item on 06.07.2016 in Madhyamam news paper as against the 2nd respondent stating that the wife of one Jayakumar, who is the 1st accused in the above crime, died due to the harassment of the 2nd respondent. The publication has been extracted in paragraph no.5 of the private complaint. The same is as under:

4. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings as against accused Nos.16 and 17, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed decisions of this Court referring the decisions of the Apex Court dealing with the essentials to constitute an offence under Section 499 of IPC and fervently argued that the offence as against the petitioners not at all made out.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed the decision reported in Mammen Mathew v. M.N. Radhakrishnan and Another [2007 (4) KHC 502 : 2007 (2) KLD 523 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker 406 : 2007 (4) KLT 833 : 2008 (1) KLJ 98 : 2008 CriLJ 845]. In the said decision this Court analyzed the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 499 of IPC in paragraph No.9 as under:

“9. The offence of defamation consists of three essential ingredients, namely,--

(1) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person

(2) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations and

(3) the said imputation must have been made with the intention to harming or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

(Vide -- Sunilakhya Chowdhury v. H. M. Jadwet and Another, AIR 1968 Calcutta 266). Thus, the mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that Annexure B news item was published with the intention of harming the reputation of the complainant. If it were so, then as soon as the complainant voiced his protest, the first accused would not have published Annexure C news item faithfully conveying to the public what the complainant had represented to the Malayala Manorama Daily. Merely because in the reply to the lawyer notice the first accused had informed the complainant that the correspondent of Malayala Manorama was present when the agitating employees gave the information to Malayala Manorama, it cannot be said that a case has been made out for evidence. The important aspect is to be examined is as to whether Annexure A complaint together with the news item prima facie makes out the offence under S.499 IPC. A reading of Annexure B news item does not give the impression that it was actuated by any malevolent motive or a desire to calumniate or cast aspersions on the complainant or to expose him to public ridicule or to inflict even the slightest injury to his reputation. If so, it will be an abuse of the process of Court to drag the first accused to face the ordeal of a trial.”

6. Dealing with the above case, this Court held as under:

“Thus, even going by the averments in the complaint, th