Remarks made by an individual, if not directed at an identifiable group, may not constitute defamation under Section 499 I.P.C.

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No.728 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, a lawyer cum journalist, has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the said case.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made a speech at a gathering of journalists at Kozhikode on 20.10.2016 denigrating the lawyer community and thereby committed the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The above speech was made at a time when there existed strife between the lawyers and journalists in Kerala in connection with some incidents of tussle between them. According to the complainant, a practising lawyer at Taliparamba, who preferred this private complaint against the petitioner, the petitioner compared the lawyer community with street dogs in the above speech which was published and telecasted by the print and visual media. The above complaint was taken into files by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba and summons ordered to the accused.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the comments made by him in the controversial speech at Kozhikode on 20.10.2016, even if proved, will not be sufficient for proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 500 , 501 and 502 I.P.C, and hence it is highly necessary to quash the proceedings in CC No.728/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, against him. It is further contended that this Court had already quashed the identical proceedings against the petitioner in four other Courts, as per orders in Crl.M.C.No.220/2017, Crl.M.C.No.139/2013, Crl.M.C.No.4128/2017 & Crl.M.C.No.2102/2018.

4. This case was being considered along with Crl.M.C.No.2297/2019 instituted by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings against him in S.T.No.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Though the case was posted for hearing on several occasions along with Crl.M.C.No.2297/2019, the first respondent did not choose to appear before this Court and to advance any arguments.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The substantial offence alleged against the petitioner in the private complaint which gave rise to CC No.728/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, is defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. The offence of defamation is defined in Section 499 I.P.C which is extracted hereunder:

“499. Defamation.—

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation1.—

It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—

It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—

An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—

No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his cal