Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19617
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
N.NEELAKANDAN – Appellant
Versus
S.VENU – Respondent
Crl.MC 6237/2019
Actions taken by an employer based on genuine complaints do not constitute defamation if conducted without malicious intent.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 499, 500, 501, 503 - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under IPC sections, concluding that no criminal offense was made out, as actions taken by the management were based on genuine complaints and not intended to defame.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as a school manager, faced defamation complaints from a teacher after taking precautionary actions following allegations of misconduct against the teacher, which had been reported by students, parent complaints, and substantiated through inquiries.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the complaint and found that the management's actions were based on legitimate concerns regarding the teacher's conduct. There was no intent to defame, and the teacher was acquitted in a related criminal case.
Issues: Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for defamation were justified or constituted an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the management's decision was taken in response to credible allegations and aimed at protecting students, thus no defamation occurred, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1767/2018 are quashed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1767/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The above case is filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 499 , 500, 501 and 503 of IPC .
2. The petitioner herein was the Manager of Santana Dharma Vidyasala Schools (SDV School for short), Alappuzha till 31.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of the School. The 1st respondent is a Sanskrit teacher in SDV Girls High School in Alappuzha. The 1st respondent had joined SDV Boys High School in Alappuzha in the year 2000 and was transferred to the SDV Girls High School since June 2015. Whileso, it is submitted that a complaint was received by the Headmistress which was later brought to the notice of the management. The complaint was from a parent of a 5th standard girl student.
3.The petitioner who was the then Manager of the school, summoned the 1st respondent to ascertain the veracity of the complaint and without disclosing the identity of the complainant, is the submission.
Meanwhile, the management of the school by way of abundant precaution took a decision to transfer the 1st respondent to SDV Boys High School, Alapuzha under the same management, is the submission. A teacher Rajeshwari was transferred in the place of the 1st respondent. But, it is submitted that the management could not implement the transfer of Rajeshwari because she was in charge of Student Police Cadet and hence could not be moved to another school.
Hence the inter- school transfer was unworkable, is the submission. However, it is submitted that the 1st respondent was asked to take class in another class.
It is also submitted that internal precautions were taken to avoid repetition of such instances, if any.
4. It is also submitted that Sree Sankara University had launched a state wide mission to propagate and strengthen Sanskrit language and the SDV School was chosen as one of the study centers for promoting Sanskrit in Alappuzha District. The 1st respondent was handling the classes in the school premises after school hours, is the submission.
However, since June 2018, the management decided not to make the Girls High school premises available for conduct of the above classes. Offended by the said decision of the management, the 1st respondent issued a lawyer notice as evident by Annexure-A stating that the petitioner is liable for defamation. The 1 st respondent terms the action of the management, as humiliation and ruining his name and reputation.
The petitioner herein send a detailed reply notice that there was complaints from the parents against the 1st respondent which was brought to the notice of the School Management.
5.It is submitted that certain clarifications and assurances were sought from the 1st respondent regarding the complaints. The petitioner send a reply notice as evident by Annexure-B. In spite of the facts remaining such, the 1st respondent filed Annexure-C complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 499 , 500, 501 and 503 of Indian Penal Code .
Meanwhile on 20.06.2019, a student counseling session was conducted by District Child Protection Unit at Alappuzha whose services were also extended to aided schools considering its importance. The coaching was for children studying between 5th standard and 10th standard. While discussing about "good touch" and "bad touch", some of the 6th standard students expressed about their bad experience with the 1st respondent teacher. Based on narrations expressed by the students, the councilor gave a report to the child line. The officials of child line took statements from the students. Information were also collected by the officials, from the parents of the respective children and forwarded to the Child Welfare Committee. Thereafter, the Child Welfare Committee handed over the papers to the Police, as evident by Annexure-D.
6.It is submitted that on re
