Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39755
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD – Appellant
Versus
DEEPAK J.M. – Respondent
Crl.MC/4139/2017
SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA.
Defamation claims must involve identifiable groups; general remarks against a profession do not meet legal standards for defamation.
Headnote:
Defamation - Speech - IPC Section 499, Cr.P.C. Section 199 - The court ruled that defamatory statements made against a general class (lawyers) do not constitute identifiable defamation under IPC Section 499, rendering the complaint unsustainable under Section 199 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners faced allegations of defamation following a lawyer's speech comparing lawyers to street dogs, published by various media. The complainant argued that the speech targeted a specific group of lawyers, while petitioners contended it referred to the general community of lawyers.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the statements made were aimed at the general community of lawyers, not an identifiable group. Therefore, the complaint did not establish the petitioners as identifiable individuals aggrieved under the relevant legal provisions.
Issues: The central issues were whether the statements constituted defamation under IPC Section 499 and if the complainant represented an identifiable group of lawyers within the meaning of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that for a defamation claim under IPC Section 499, the identified group must be a specific, identifiable association, which was not established in this case, validating the defendants' arguments.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.4139/2017 are A2 to A8, petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.5383/2017 are A16 to A19, petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.5352/2017 are A34 to A37 and petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.6185/2017 are A49 to A52 in ST.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A private complaint annexed in Crl.M.C. No.4139/2017, alleging the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC .
2. It is alleged that the 1st accused, a practising lawyer, has made some statements in a speech, which were duly published by almost all the print and electronic media in the State, including these petitioners. It is alleged that these petitioners, along with the other media persons, who are accused, had printed and published and also caused the telecasting of the said speech as a news item. The complainant is a practising lawyer, who is allegedly representing a group of advocates, who are agitating and protesting against the atrocities allegedly committed by the media persons.
3. The portion of the speech, which according to the complainant, constitute defamatory statements has been reproduced in Malayalam in paragraph 1 of Annexure-A complaint. The statement precisely compares 'street dogs' on the one side with 'lawyers' on the other side. He has allegedly further stated that the menace from street dogs could be checked by adequate treatment. He went on to say that he did not mean whether such a treatment should be given to “them”.
4. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent complainant, by the term “them”, the 1st respondent had meant an identifiable class and determinate group of lawyers, who are staging the protest/agitation against some atrocities caused by the media.
5. The learned Senior Counsel and the other learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced an argument that the proceedings in the case before the court below based on Annexure-A private complaint are not legally sustainable in view of Section 199 Cr.P.C. read with Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC . It has been argued that even from the complaint itself, it is discernible that the statements were allegedly made as against the general community of lawyers, and not against an identifiable or determinate class of individuals. It has been pointed out that such a group of lawyers, who are allegedly staging an agitation or protest in the matter, is not identifiable. There is no case that any separate association of such persons were formed. Had there been any such association, it could have been said that the said body of individuals as an association could be identifiable and they could be brought within the purview of Explanation 2 to .
6. Section 499 IPC says:-
“499. Defamation - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”
Therefore, what is contained in the main body of Section 499 IPC is regarding the harm to the reputation of any person, which necessarily mean that, the said provision deals with individuals. In the case of particular individuals, they can be identified.
7. Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC says:-
“It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.”
The question to be considered is whether the complainant represents or forms part of a 'collection of persons' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC .
8. On a mere reading of the statement reproduced by the complainant in paragraph 1 of Annexure-A complaint, it clearly gives an indication that the 1st respondent was referring the lawyers as a general class in the middle portion of the said statement. There, he had made a comparison of street d
