Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45450
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
PRASOON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/4107/2015
SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN, SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR, SRI.ASHISH VIDYADHARAN
Defamation claims must be substantiated in court; mere allegations in a private complaint cannot lead to dismissal at a preliminary hearing.
Headnote:
Defamation - Private Complaint - IPC Section List - The court addressed alleged defamation under IPC Section 500, noting the necessity for the complainant to prove the defamatory nature of the imputations. It emphasized that allegations made in a private complaint are premature for dismissal without further examination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a defamation case, challenge a private complaint alleging they conspired to make defamatory statements. The complainant claims the statements were repeated publicly during a gathering, but the petitioners dispute the existence of such publications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of defamation as per IPC Section 500 are serious enough to warrant further examination. It deemed it premature to dismiss the case without allowing the complainant the opportunity to prove the allegations.
Issues: Whether the private complaint alleging defamation should be dismissed at this preliminary stage without evidential hearings.
Ratio Decidendi: A private complaint alleging defamation requires a proper hearing to ascertain the truth behind the allegations, and it is inappropriate to dismiss such claims outright at an early stage.
Final Decision: The Crl.M.C. is disposed of with liberty granted to petitioners to raise their contentions before the trial court.
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioners are A7 to A10 in C.C.No.88 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Aluva. It is a private complaint alleging offence under Section 500 IPC . It is the case of the complainant, who is the 2nd respondent, that certain imputations were published, as a result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused at the residence of the 10th accused. On going through the imputations, it seems that the same are per se defamatory.
3. Over and above it, it is alleged that petitioners 1 to
3 had repeated the imputations in the public meeting of the family units held on 29.09.2012. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the so called publication has not been produced.
4. Whatever it is, it seems that the said imputations are reproduced in the private complaint. In paragraph No.9 of the private complaint, it has been averred that the very same imputations contained in the publication were repeated by petitioners 1 to 3 in the public meeting of the family units.
5. Over and above it, there is an allegation that a conspiracy was hatched by all the accused at the house of the 10th accused, who is the 4th petitioner herein. Of course, those matters are to be proved. At the same time, being a private complaint, the present stage is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The petitioners can take up all these contentions at appropriate stage before the court below.
With liberty to the petitioners to take up all these contentions before the court below at appropriate stage, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.
