O R D E R

The accused No.1 in S.T.No.3 of 2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, 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 in Thrissur 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 Thiruvananthapuram, who preferred a private complaint against the petitioner and 54 other persons associated with the main stream and online media, the petitioner compared the lawyer community with street dogs in the above speech which was published and telecasted by the print and visual media throughout Kerala. The above complaint was taken into files by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and summons ordered to all the accused.

3. The accused Nos.2 to 8, accused Nos.16 to 19, accused Nos.34 to 37 and accused Nos.49 to 52 had filed Crl.M.C.No.4139/2017, Crl.M.C.No.5383/2017, Crl.M.C.No.5352/2017 and Crl.M.C.No.6185/2017 respectively before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against them in S.T.No.3/2017 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. As per order dated 20.02.2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the above petitions and quashed all further proceedings against the respective petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 8, accused Nos.16 to 19, accused Nos.34 to 37 and accused Nos.49 to 52) in the said cases. 4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the comments made by him in the controversial speech at Thrissur 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 S.T.No.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against him. It is further contended that this Court already found in the order dated 20.02.2018 in Crl.M.C.Nos.4139, 5383, 5352 and 6185 of 2017, which is reported in Law Journals [Malayala Manorama Company Limited and Others v. Deepak J.M and Others (2018 KHC 160 : 2018 (1) KLT 928 : ILR 2018 (1) KER 886 : 2018 (2) KLJ 304)], that the complainant cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C when the group which he is representing cannot be brought within the category of class of persons within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 I.P.C. Upon the above grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

5. Inspite of repeated notices issued from this Court, the first respondent did not care to advance arguments at the time when the case stood posted on various posting dates for hearing.

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

7. The substantial offence alleged against the petitioner in the private complaint which gave rise to S.T.No.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, 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.

Explanation 1.—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