Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 11320 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2024
DEFAMATION - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC Sections 499, 500 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, which define the offense of defamation and its punishments. It emphasized that for a defamation claim to succeed, there must be a clear intention or knowledge that the publication would harm the reputation of the complainant. The court found that the publication in question did not meet these criteria, leading to the decision to quash the complaint against the media petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3 in a defamation case, sought to quash a complaint alleging that their publication in Malayala Manorama Daily constituted defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500. The complaint was based on a news item that the petitioners published, which the complainant claimed was defamatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the publication did not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge to harm the complainant's reputation, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500. The court highlighted the importance of protecting press freedom and the need for careful consideration before taking cognizance of defamation claims against media personnel.
Issues: Whether the publication by the petitioners constituted defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500, and whether the trial court's cognizance of the complaint was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a defamation claim to be valid, it must be shown that the publication was made with the intention or knowledge that it would harm the reputation of the complainant. The absence of such intent in the publication led to the conclusion that no offense was made out.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed the complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 270/2022.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No. 270/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Aluva and the prayer herein is as under:
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant in this case. The learned Public prosecutor also was heard. Perused the relevant records.
3. Here, the 2nd respondent/complainant lodged Annexure A1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Aluva, alleging that, accused Nos.1 to 13 committed offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter) punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. In the complaint, the publication made by Malayala Manorama Daily and other newspapers were detailed. The trial court recorded statement of the complainant and took cognizance in the matter and proceeded further.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the only allegation against the petitioners herein is that, they have published a news item, as stated in paragraph No. 5 of Annexure A1 and the same, in no way, would constitute an offence under Section 499 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, unwanted prosecution against the petitioners herein, who are media people, to be quashed.
5. Zealously opposing quashment of the case as against the petitioners herein, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant read out paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the complaint and submitted that, in paragraph Nos.2 and 3, the background facts, which led to publication of the news item which is defamatory has been illustrated and therefore, offence under Section 499 of the IPC punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, specifically made out, prima facie. Therefore, the trial court rightly took cognizance in the matter and the same need not be interfered.
6. Insofar as the ingredients to attract offence under Section 499 of IPC punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, the legal position is well settled. In the decision in Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2024 KLT Online 1835, this Court extensively considered the same and summarized in paragraph No. 10, as under:
7. Keeping the legal principles, as extracted hereinabove, the publication made by accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the petitioners herein, is as stated in paragraph No. 5 of the complaint, as under:
The essential ingredients of defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500 require a clear intention or knowledge that the publication would harm the reputation of the person concerned, which was not est....
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 i....
Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads defamation.
even in the complaint, there is no averment that other persons read the counter. As such it would not in any way come within the purview of defamation under Section 499 IPC.
Court must prevent unjust legal proceedings; defamation requires intention to harm, not met as the news article was factual.
An individual act of defamation is required to invoke Section 500 of the I.P.C. The publication made by a newspaper bureau, based on public agitation, does not constitute an individual act of defamat....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
