Defamatory statements must be specifically detailed in the complaint for a valid case of defamation; absence leads to quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.1058 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the trial court’ ).

2. The 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners before the trial court alleging offences punishable under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC . The allegations in Annexure AI complaint is that a telephonic conversation between the complainant and the 1^st accused were secretly recorded by the 1^st accused and both accused published a portion of its contents which according to the complainant was defamatory. The trial court conducted enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The complainant and two witnesses were examined. The trial court took the complaint on file and issued process to the petitioners. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash Annexure-AI complaint on the ground that no offences under r/w of are attracted.

3. I have heard Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution against the petitioners is not maintainable for the simple reason that the alleged defamatory statements are not reproduced in the complaint nor did the petitioners produce a copy of the publication containing the alleged defamatory statements along with the complaint. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court inKonath Madhavi Amma v. S.M.Sherief & Another (1985 Kerala Law Journal 317). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the averments in the complaint prima facie disclose the offence under Section 500 of IPC and hence, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings cannot be invoked at this stage. The learned counsel further submitted that the publication containing defamatory statement can be produced during the trial.

5. The 2^nd respondent is a dance performer and was an Executive Board Member of Kerala Kalamandalam which is deemed to be a University of Art and Culture. The 1^st petitioner & 2^nd petitioner are artists. They are performers of Mohiniyattom. The following are the allegations against the petitioners in Annexure-AI complaint:-

“(a) That during January, 2018, the Malayalee Association at Abu Dhabi had conducted a dance competition and she was a judge in the above competition.

(b) That the students trained by the 1^st accused had participated in the respective competition. However, they did not win any laurels.

(c) It was believed by the 1^st accused that the complainant had purposefully ignored the students trained by the 1^st accused.

(d) That the 1^st accused rang up the complainant questioned her on the propriety of her decision and the complainant explained to him what had happened in the competition.

(e) In the process of the above conversation the complainant told the 1^st accused that the "mudras' shown/exhibited by his students were incorrect and that mistakes are common and also that even experienced teachers commits mistakes. This phone conversation was secretarially recorded by the 1^st accused and he caused to publish it in the social media that the complainant had spoken ill about her Gurus. The complainant was also projected as the lady of loose morals and thereby her esteem in the society had been lowered.”

6. In Annexure-AI the alleged defamatory statement has not been reproduced or extracted. The complaint does not specifically mention the date on which the petitioners allegedly made the publication. The case of the complainan