ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 588 of 2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Perinthalmanna which arose from Crime No. 269 of 2019 of Perinthalmanna police station.

2. It is alleged that the accused, that is the petitioner had made posts in whatsApp and facebook defaming the reputation of the defacto complainant; that was done from 03.05.2019 at 15.40 hours onwards touching Nisdon Infoway which is an institution run by the defacto complainant and thus, offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is alleged against the petitioner, who is a lady. The petitioner submits that the offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is not made out. If the defacto complainant had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with a complaint alleging offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner would have availed the statutory exceptions to defend the case. Here to avert such an advantage to the accused, he has cleverly chosen to get a crime registered against the petitioner at his home town which is far away from Ernakulam where the petitioner resides. The prosecution was launched with mala fide intentions. Therefore, entire proceedings are sought to be quashed.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, ingredients of offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are not made out. From the charge sheet it cannot be discerned as to what is the bad post made by the petitioner. It is also not stated that it was done repeatedly for causing nuisance to the defacto complainant. The alleged posting was done on 03.05.2019 alone, it has never been repeated. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions reported in Biju V.G. (Dr) v. State of Kerala and Another [2020 (5)

KHC 685] and Jayesh P. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur East Police Station and others [2021 (2) KHC

357].

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application. According to him, the petitioner had made defamatory posts causing nuisance to the defacto complainant and thus, the crime was launched. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Anto Joseph v.

State of Kerala and others [2016 (3) KHC 832].

6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure-I charge sheet does not give any specific imputation against the petitioner. It is only stated that from 03.05.2019, at 15.40 hours onwards, the petitioner had made defamatory posts through whatsApp and facebook defaming the Nisdon Infoway, the institution of the defacto complainant. The case diary was called by this Court to gather as to what was that defamatory posts made by the petitioner. The case diary has been made available before Court.

7. The case diary indicates that on 03.05.2019, the defacto complainant had given a complaint to the Station House Officer, Perinthalmanna police station. According to him, he is running computer sales business in Perinthalmanna for the last twenty years. He had purchased white boards from Media Tech Solutions, a firm run by the petitioner for Rs. 57,925/-. As election was declared, some of his orders were cancelled and an amount of Rs. 6,935/- is outstanding towards payment to the petitioner. As the order was cancelled, four white boards were remaining with them. While so, the accused had made posts in whatsApp group and facebook describing the institution of the defacto complainant very badly.

8. The case diary contains a whatsApp post reportedly posted by the petitioner which reads thus, 'don't bill to Nisdon Infoway the fraud peoples'. Similar posting was done in the facebook also which is evident from the documents available in the case diary. But details of such posts are wanting in the charge sheet. Unless such details are made available and copy furnished