IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/28TH BHADRA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 144 OF 2022 C.M.P.No.878/2021 in C.C.No.651/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 TO 3 & 5:

1 ARUN RAJ AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SABU, VACHALIL(H), KARAMALA. P.O., POOVAMKULAM, PIN - 686662

2 IRSHAD AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYAPARAMBIL (H), HS ROAD, CHERUPALASSERY. P.O PALAKKAD, PIN - 679503

3 NIDHIN JOHNSON AGED 30 YEARS S/O. JOHNSON, KEERIPLAKKAL (H), THIRUVANKULAM, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305

4 ABID ALI AGED 32 YEARS S/O. AMEER ALI, KUZHIKKADABVIL(H), RANDAR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673 BY ADVS.

K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA D.FEROZE RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI G SUDHEER- Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam (for short 'the court below') dated 14.9.2021 in C.M.P.No.878/2021 in C.C.No.651/2015.

2. The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.1804/2014 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 501 r/w 34 of the IPC and 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.

3. The revision petitioners are practicing lawyers. The incident had taken place when they were law students at Government Law College, Ernakulam.

4. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention to defame the victim distributed the notice containing defamatory allegations among the students and defamed her and thereby committed the offences.

5. The revision petitioners filed C.M.P.No.878/2021 invoking Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that charge against them are groundless. The court below after hearing both sides, discharged the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 501 of the IPC alone as per the impugned order. The revision petitioners challenge the impugned order in this revision petition to the extent of not discharging them of the offence punishable under Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.

6. I have heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The revision petitioners were the students of three years 3^rd semester at the time of the incident. The victim was a senior student at the same college who was studying in three years 4^th semester. Her allegation is that the revision petitioners circulated Annexure-I notice among the students containing defamatory remarks against her.

8. A perusal of Annexure-I notice would show that it does not contain either the name of the revision petitioners or the name of the victim. It does not have any reference to the victim at all. No witness spoke that the revision petitioners are the authors of Annexure-I though some of the witnesses stated that the revision petitioners distributed the notice among the students of the college. Even if the said statement of the witnesses is believed, that will only prove that the revision petitioners circulated the notice. In short, there is nothing on record to show that the revision petitioners are the authors of Annexure-I notice. That apart, it is doubtful whether mere circulation of notice containing defamatory remarks that too against a senior student would attract the term “ragging” defined under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. Section 2(b) of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act defines “ragging” as follows:-

“2(b)"Ragging" means doing of any act, by disorderly conduct, to a student of an educational institution, which