IMPORTANT POINT
A complaint to lawful authorities alleging misconduct does not constitute defamation under Section 500 IPC if it does not involve publication of defamatory material.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.116/2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. It is a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 500 IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, she filed a petition before the Director of the Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent is working as a Librarian and the contents in the petition are defamatory to the 1st respondent. It is alleged that the averments in the petition and the Police enquiry that followed caused much damage/injury to the complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 500 IPC. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out against the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. I also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that a complaint was filed against the 1st respondent before Sri. M.V. Jayarajan, who was the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent was employed. It is also submitted that the petitioner's mother submitted a petition before the Chief Minister on 18.10.2014 against the 1st respondent stating that 1st respondent and his wife were trying to misappropriate her property. The Police had taken statement in the said matter. True copy of the petition filed by the mother of the petitioner herein before the Chief Minister and the petitioner’s statement are Annexures-1 and 2. The petitioner's mother died on 12.08.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that, she never published the petition in any form but has only submitted the same before a lawful authority. The complaint was filed with bonafide intention to redress her grievance and to set the law in motion. Annexure-3 is the certified copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent is employed. The petitioner’s complaint is that, the 1st respondent herein, who is her sister’s husband, has been misbehaving with her and also has been attempting to get the property of her mother transferred in his name and his wife’s name. He and his wife (petitioner’s sister) have been pressurizing the petitioner by raising false allegation that she had forged documents relating to the property and even her professional degree.

5. O.S. No.486/2015 was filed by the 1st respondent’s wife at the instance of 1st respondent herein against the petitioner and her aged father, which is pending before the Munsiff Court, Changanasserry is the further submission. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent does not have a good reputation as claimed by him. The petitioner produced Annexure-4 news paper report to show the same. Because of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent filed Annexure-5 complaint alleging offence under Section 500 IPC is the submission.

6. This Court perused Annexure-5 complaint. The main allegation is about the complaint filed against the 1st respondent which resulted in a Police enquiry and the summoning of the 1st respondent by the Police. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent was working and also a complaint by the mother of the petitioner before the Chief Minister which was forwarded to the Police Station concerned.

7. The 4th exception to Section 499 says that, it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings. Admittedly, in this case, a complaint is filed before the Chief Minister and before the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent was working, in which certain allegations are made by the petitioner and her mother. Th