Complaint for defamation to be filed by an aggrieved person only.

In February, 1981 there was a strike of the College Teachers. Later, it was withdrawn. It appears that the Government had interdicted payment of salary for the strike period to those who had participated in the strike.

2. On 10.6.1981, the Calicut edition of ‘Malayala Manorama’ published a news item, emanating from its Trivandrum reporter, captioned: “They pocketed the salary withheld by the Government”. The report was induitably not complimentary to those connected with the strike. It was clearly stated in the report that most of the Government College Teachers abused their position as ‘drawing officers’ and thus received the salary and allowances which had been withheld by the Government. The Association of Government College Teachers through its General Secretary contradicted the report. He asserted that neither the office bearers nor the active workers of the organisation had received salary in the manner suggested. This report was published in the same paper on the 14th of June, 1981.

3. The dent of the report caused to the reputation of the organisation and its office bearers was seriously viewed by these. The publication of the clarificatory statement of the Association in the paper did not satisfy the General Secretary of the organisation. He therefore filed on 7.11.1981 a complaint, C.C.No.228 of 1981 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Tellicherry. The complaint was described as “T.V. Balan, General Secretary, Association of Kerala Government College Teachers”. The Chief Editor, Staff Reporter and Printer of the paper were arrayed as the accused. The complaint was presented under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It averred that the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and prayed that summons be issued to the accused and that the accused be dealt with according to law.

4. On service of summons, the accused appeared before the Magistrate Court. They were released on bail. Ultimately, the case stood posted to 14.10.1982 for evidence.

5. Facing a criminal trial is not a pleasant pastime. In rare cases, when factual situation and legal position are so clear, relief from an unwarranted harassment arising out of a criminal trial can be granted by the High Court. The accused felt that the present case was one such.

6. Three of the accused-accused 1, 3 and 4 filed the above criminal miscellaneous case on 11.10.1982, invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and praying that the complaint and proceedings pursuant there to be quashed.

7. The petition was entertained by this Court on 12.10.1982. Further proceedings were stayed. The respondent-complainant who entered appearance in the case in due course, strongly opposed the petition. It was contended on his behalf that the case is not one where the accused should be permitted to have an easy escape through a side walk as it were, The case is one where the accused had to face the trial, according to him.

8. The offending report was read over and over again by counsel appearing on both sides. On behalf of the respondent, particular stress was made on portions which had been specifically referred to in the complaint, the exerpts of which had been extracted therein. The report, according to the complainant, did make out a case which should go to the trial.

9. The serious and difficult question is whether the case should necessarily go to the trial.

10. It is desirable at the outset that reference is made to the passages in the report complained of as offending the accused. They are: (1) The title of the report already referred to above. (2) A sentence which reads: “And some leaders of the Government College Teachers Organisations who had staged the strike had not hesitated to receive the underserved salary and allowances.” and (3) A statement reading: “Emoluments went down the drain as regards those teachers in private colleges and the junior lecturers in the Government Col