Redisplaying defamatory content constitutes liability under Section 500 IPC, regardless of its prior publication.

O R D E R

Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C No.825/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. The offence alleged is under Section 500 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings upon a complaint filed by the second respondent.

2. The gist of the complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioners herein and the third respondent, is as follows:

The complainant has been involved in the film and television sector for the last three decades, as an actor and director. He has got good reputation among the general public. The first accused (third respondent herein) is also involved in the film field. The second accused is a publication related to the film sector. The third accused is the Editor-in-Chief of a website maintained by the second accused publication. The 4th accused is the Editor of that website. In connection with the arrest of a prominent film actor for his involvement in the rape of an actress, there was difference of opinion between the complainant and the first accused. While the complainant supported the above actor, the first accused strongly criticised that actor. Due to the above rift, the first accused posted highly derogatory statements against the complainant in a facebook collective by name ‘People TV Debate Forum’, where the complainant was also a member. The above highly defamatory statements made by the first accused in that facebook group, were redisplayed by accused Nos.2 to 4 in their website. Many of the friends and well wishers of the complainant had the occasion to watch the above defamatory statements published in the website of accused Nos.2 to 4, as a result of which, those persons happened to think that the complainant is a person of deplorable character, who supported a rapist for personal gains. They had called the complainant and asked him why he had stooped to such a low level by supporting a rapist. Thus, the publication made by accused Nos.2 to 4 in their website contained the imputation harming the reputation of the complainant.

3. The learned Magistrate took the complaint to files, recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C, and issued summons to the accused to appear and face trial for the commission of offence under Section 500 I.P.C.

4. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that the offence of defamation is not attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

5. Though the third respondent (1st accused) appeared through counsel, no arguments were advanced from his part.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them for two reasons. Firstly, it is contended that their mere act of redisplaying a post, which the third respondent made in another social media platform, will not attract the offence under Section 500 I.P.C, since the imputation contained in that matter had already reached the viewer public through that social media platform. Secondly, it is argued that the contents of the aforesaid matter, which the petitioners redisplayed in their website, cannot be termed as defamatory to the complainant. It is for the above reasons, that the petitioners seek the involvement of this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to terminate the prosecution proceedings against them.

8. The first contention of the petitioners that the redisplaying in the website of the second petitioner, an objectionable publication which h