Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
SIJU A.THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5258 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.16/2020 | C.C. NO.502 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.SANJAY, RAHUL RAJ P., PAUL VARGHESE, KIRAN NARAYANAN, MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A, MEERA R. MENON
For the Respondents: SHEEBA THOMAS
Defamation offences must be initiated by a private complaint from the aggrieved, invalidating cognizance taken on a police report.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 500 and 501 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 199 - Challenge against registration of crime for defamation based on police report rather than private complaint - The law states that no court shall take cognizance of defamation unless complainant is aggrieved - Existing cognizance is quashed. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Cognizance of defamation - An FIR cannot be filed for defamation, as per established law, which requires an aggrieved person to file a private complaint, reinforcing the legal requirement for initiating defamation proceedings. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Crl.M.C. was filed against the registration of a crime for defamation under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC, and proceedings based on a police report were challenged. The petitioners contended that the police and Magistrate lacked authority to act based on a police report for such a complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the challenge, determining that the cognizance based on a police report for defamation was invalid and required the complaint of an aggrieved person.
Issues: The core issue addressed was the legal validity of proceeding with defamation charges without a legitimate complaint from an aggrieved person, as mandated by procedural law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that defamation cases must be initiated by an aggrieved person’s complaint, and police cannot file an FIR for defamation, as reiterated in prior judgments cited.
Result: Crl.M.C. allowed, and further proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invalid registration of defamation crime by police. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant not a party due to prior passing. (Para 4) |
| 3. law mandates complaint from aggrieved person. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025 The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is against the registration of Crime No.16 of 2020 at the Karuvarakundu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 r/w Section 34 of IPC and the further proceedings in C.C. No.502 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri, based on the final report filed in that crime.
2. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence being under Section 500 and 501 of IPC , neither are the police competent to investigate nor the Magistrate, to take cognizance based on such police report. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on decisions of the Apex Court inSubramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016 7 SCC 221] and M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others [(200) 7 SCC 552]. Reference is also made to Section 199 Cr.P.C ..
3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. As the defacto complainant is no more, he is not made a party.
5. The prosecution for defamation is dealt-with in Section 199 of Cr.P.C . As per Section 199 (1), no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC , except on a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Chapter XXI of pertains to defamation. In the case at hand cognizance was taken based on the final report filed by the police. Being so, the challenge is liable to be upheld.
A detailed discussion on the point is not warranted in view of the clear exposition of law by this Court in paragraph 8 of the order in Crl.M.C. No.7951 of 2024 is extracted below;
“8.As far as section 500 IPC is concerned, the said provision deals with the offence of defamation. Section 199 Cr.P.C states that no court shall take cognizance of the offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved. A police report cannot be the basis for taking cognizance of the offence of defamation as it can be taken only on a complaint made by the person aggrieved. Thus, the offence of defamation can be initiated only through a private complaint and not a police report. The said proposition of law is elementary and needs no elaborate discussion. In this context it is appropriate to refer to the decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 , wherein it has been reiterated that when the offence of defamation is alleged, neither can an FIR be filed nor can a direction be issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and it is only a private complaint that can be instituted by the person aggrieved. Similarly, in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others (2000) 7 SCC 552 , it was observed that if a Magistrate was to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an "aggrieved person", such a trial would be void. Since in the instant case, the offence of defamation has been alleged and cognizance was taken on the basis of a police report, the said proceeding is without legal validity.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C.
