Defamation charges are not substantiated when pending trials concerning related claims exist, allowing the accused to challenge defamation before the completion of such trials.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the Annexure A1 complaint filed against the petitioner. It is a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and also under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under and 500 of ., and it is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court as C.C.No.63/2017.

2.The case of the 2nd respondent, in brief, is that he was working as the Headmaster at Government Model High School, Thrissur. He belongs to scheduled caste community.

The petitioner was a teacher of that school. She disliked the 2 nd respondent and hence created several problems against him, is the submission. On 11.12.2014, she lodged a complaint before the Vanitha Police Station, Thrissur, alleging that he misbehaved towards her. It is also alleged that, though he was summoned to the station, the police closed the complaint on getting correct information from other teachers and staff, is the submission. Subsequently, the District Education Officer (D.E.O.) conducted an enquiry as directed by the Deputy Director of Education and found that the conduct of the petitioner would adversely affect the smooth functioning of the school. Therefore, she was transferred to G.H.S., Ramavarmapuram, is the further submission. She was relieved from her former school on 16.02.2015. It is submitted by the 2nd respondent that, the petitioner believes that she was transferred at the instance of the 2nd respondent. On 24.02.2015, she threatened the 2nd respondent, stating that her husband is an Advocate and she can take action against him. She also informed that she was not interested to work under a ‘pulaya’ who is not able to work as a headmaster. He submitted a complaint before the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the Commissioner directed him to prefer complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court. In the meanwhile, a crime was registered against the 2nd respondent based on the complaint of the petitioner. When he was summoned to the station in connection with the said crime, some officers and staff of the school were there in the station and when they came to know the details of the petitioner’s complaint, they believed that the 2nd respondent is a person committing harassment against women and after that they began to hate him. He is not able to do his job peacefully. The petitioner lodged baseless complaint against him in order to defame him is the submission. Hence the private complaint is filed.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I also heard the learned Public prosecutor.

4.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted in Annexure A1 complaint, it does not reveal the commission of any offence as alleged by the 2nd respondent. There is no ingredient to attract the alleged offences, is the submission. The 2nd respondent filed Annexure A1 only as a counter blast to a crime registered against him at the instance of the petitioner as evident from Annexure A2, is the submission. It was also submitted that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner based on Annexure A1, is abuse of process of Court. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that an offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC is made out and this Court may not interfere with the private complaint.

5.This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . The only offence for which cognizance was taken are under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC . This Court perused Annexure A1. Paragraph 12 of the Annexure A1 all