Publication lacking intent to harm reputation does not constitute defamation under IPC.

ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 in CC.No.270 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Aluva. The crime originated from Annexure A1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of offences under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC . The allegation is regarding a news item published in the 1^st accused Malayala Manorama daily and the 4th accused Mathrubhoomi daily about the 2^nd respondent, the Municipal Councillor of Ward No.9 of the Aluva Municipality, having caused garbage to be deposited in the premises of the Adwaithasramam in Aluva. The 2^nd accused is the Editor and the 3^rd accused, the Local Reporter of Malayala Manorama. Likewise, the 5^th accused is the Executive Editor, and the 6^th accused, the Local Reporter of the Mathrubhoomi daily.

2. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had challenged the complaint and further proceedings thereon in Crl.M.C.No.11320 of 2023. Therein, by a detailed order (Annexure 4) the proceedings against those accused were quashed, finding that the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence of defamation are not made out.

3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. The 2^nd respondent has not appeared despite service of notice.

5. All that is stated in the news items is that waste was deposited in the premises of Adwaithasramam, and there is a complaint that the 2^nd respondent was instrumental in depositing the waste. The news items further says that when objections were raised, the waste was removed. As held by this Court in Annexure 4, such a report cannot be termed as defamatory. The ingredients necessary to constitute the offence and the precedents on the point are elaborately dealt with in Annexure 4 order, paragraphs 6 and 7 of which are extracted below;

“6. Insofar as the ingredients to attract offence under S.499 of IPC punishable under S.500 of the , the legal position is well settled. In the decision in Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KLT OnLine 1835] , this Court extensively considered the same and summarized in paragraph No.10, as under:10. Summarizing the legal position as regard the ingredients to attract an offence under S.499 of punishable under S.500 of in Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K. (2017 (4) KLT OnLine 2135 (SC) = (2018) 1 SCC 615 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 255 : AIR 2017 SC 5608 : (2018) 181 AIC 5 : (2018) 1 Cal LJ 117 : 2018 CriLJ 924 : (2018) 1 KCCR 321 : (2018) 1 ECrN 171), it is held that in order to constitute offence of defamation, the ingredients are; (i) a person to make some imputation concerning any other person; (ii) such imputation must be made either (a) with intention, or (b) knowledge, or (c) having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. (iii) imputation could be, by (a) words, either spoken or written, or (b) by making signs, or (c) visible representations (iv) imputation could be either made or published. Under the said provision, the lawgiver has made the making or publishing of any imputation with a requisite intention or knowledge or reason to believe, as provided therein, that the imputation will harm the reputation of any person, the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation.

7. Keeping the legal principles, as extracted herein above, the publication made by accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the petitioners herein, is as stated in paragraph No.5 of the complaint, as under:

5. The accused Nos.1 to 3 published a news item on 20.02.2017 in Malayala Manorama Daily stating that “അᩛ᪕(cid:3)(cid:4)താ്ᩦമംവള്ᩔിലേ(cid:15)്ᨪ്മാ(cid:15)ിന്യംലേ(cid:20)ാരിയി്ᨾത്വിവാ(cid:3)മായി.

മാ(cid:15)ിന്യം(cid:20)ൗൺസി(cid:15)ർസ(cid:4)്ᩌംനി(cid:15)യിൽനീ്ᨪി.”

As I am in complete agreement with the findings, the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in CC.No.270 of 2022 o