A defamation claim's validity depends on whether the statement made serves the public good and is true, requiring judicial examination in trial.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in S.T.No.3175 of 2024 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IX, Ernakulam. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging that the petitioner had defamed him by publicly stating that the 2^nd respondent is a ക(cid:2)ട(cid:4)കളൻ(bandit) and വ(cid:8)ഗ(cid:10)ഹ മ(cid:14)(cid:2)ഷ(cid:2)വ(cid:16)(idol thief). The essential facts are as under;

The petitioner is the leader of a political party. The 2^nd respondent raised certain allegations of corruption and bribery against another leader from the same party, who was contesting in the Parliament election. The allegedly defamatory comments were made by the petitioner on being asked about the allegations raised by the 2^nd respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client had only repeated the statement about the 2^nd respondent published in the media. For prosecuting a person for the offence of defamation, he himself should have made or published the defamatory statement. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Inox Air Products Limited Now Known as Inox Air Products Private Limited and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 209], to argue that, issuance of process to an accused is not an empty formality and the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. According to the counsel, had the Magistrate applied his mind, cognisance would not have been taken.

3. It is submitted that the vague allegations in the complaint and the list of witnesses submitted along with it reveals that the complaint is filed on an experimental basis. 4. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, insofar as the petitioner has admitted that he had made the imputations against the 2^nd respondent, the question as to whether the statement is defamatory or not should be left for the trial court to decide, based on the evidence tendered.

5. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking of cognisance and issuance of summons to an accused is not an empty formality. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect his application of mind to the facts of the case. In the case at hand, the order taking cognisance is not before this Court. Hence, the legality or otherwise of that order cannot be decided in the Crl.M.C.

7. The contention that the statement made by the petitioner was already published in the media and will not therefore attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC is a matter for the trial court to decide based on the evidence tendered. The law on this point is well settled through a series of decisions including, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 221] , the relevant portion of which reads as under;

“179. Having dealt with the four Explanations, presently, we may analyse the Exceptions and note certain authorities with regard to the Exceptions. It is solely for the purpose of appreciating how the Court has appreciated and applied them. The First Exception stipulates that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. “Public good” has to be treated to be a fact. In Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab [ Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab , (1970) 1 SCC 590 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 253] , the Court has held that in order to come within the First Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning the respondent is true and the publication of the imputation is for the public good. The onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputat