Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65277
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
VALSA VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 734 2018
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR, SMT.LINTA VARGHESE, SMT.SREEJA V.
The court established that intent behind communication in defamation cases is pivotal and requires thorough examination beyond surface-level assertions.
Headnote:
Defamation - Suspension - IPC Sections 500, 342, 506 - Court interpreted information dissemination regarding suspension as potentially defamatory and criticized the lower court's analysis, setting the stage for reconsideration of the complaint based on established legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, was suspended and subsequently defamed through SMS notifications sent by school management regarding her suspension. She alleged defamation and sought prosecution under IPC sections for the impact on her reputation and privacy.
Finding of the Court:
The initial court dismissed the complaint, viewing the SMS as not defamatory. The higher court found fault with this analysis, emphasizing that the intent behind the suspension communication needed to be examined more profoundly.
Issues: Whether the SMS communications regarding the petitioner's suspension constituted defamation and whether the analysis performed by the lower court was adequate in considering the intent and context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the predominant motive behind the dissemination of suspension information should be investigated to ascertain if it aims to tarnish the petitioner's reputation.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
O R D E R
The petitioner herein laid a complaint as CMP No.123/2018 before the Gram Nyayalaya, Vadavucode, under sections 190 read with section 200 of Cr.P.C. She was a teacher in a school. The first accused was the manager, the second accused was its principal and the other accused were persons who were responsible for the running of the school.
2. It was stated by her that, while she was efficiently pursuing her duties, she was served with a suspension order on 20/3/2018. She was asked to give an explanation. Thereafter, on 29/3/2018, she received another communication informing her that she was removed from the post of head of the kindergarten section. The management thereafter forwarded SMS to the parents of the students of the kindergarten school informing them that the petitioner herein was suspended from the school, with effect from 22/3/2018 on disciplinary grounds. Contending that, SMS widely circulated by the accused have gravely and detrimentally affected the reputation of the Cr.R.P.No. 734/2018 2 complainant in the eyes of the parents, and it was done with the intention of defaming her by publishing an imputation with an intention of harming the reputation of the complainant, and that the dissemination of such false information transgressed into her right of privacy, she laid the complaint. She sought for the prosecution of the accused for offences punishable under section 500 read with sections
342 and506 IPC .
3. Sworn statement of the petitioner and two witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate. By order dated 6.6.2018, the court below dismissed the application holding that the complaint was devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has approached this Court in this revision.
4. Heard and examined the records.
5. A detailed complaint has been filed by the petitioner. Her sworn statement is produced as Annexure A2. She seems to have given evidence substantially in consonance with the complaint. She has stated that, the message sent by that SMS had substantially affected her right and affected her career. The court below, by the impugned order held that, the SMS issued by the school authority was not per se defamatory. According to the court below, the factum of suspension so stated in the SMS cannot be said to be a false imputation. It was also held that, regarding the details of conspiracy and the intimidation, the petitioner did not depose in detail. She has Cr.R.P.No. 734/2018 3 also not stated that, she felt alarmed. It was held that, she did state that she was confined in a room, with her freedom of movement totally restricted beyond a certain circumscribing limits. On the above premise, the court held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against any person arrayed as accused.
6. The crucial question that arose was not whether the facts mentioned in SMS was substantially true or defamatory. The question was whether the forwarding of SMS about the suspension of the victim to all the parents was with a predominant motive of defaming the petitioner . She has a specific case that, it was intended to tarnish her, rather than achieving any laudable objective. In her statement, she has mentioned about it, though not specifically. It was also stated by her that, when she went to the office room of the Principal, he closed the door and went out. There is an allegation that she was mentally harassed and threatened. It seems that, the court below has conducted a roving enqury as to whether in her statement, all ingredients of offence were disclosed.
7. The above approach seems to be in conflict to the settled legal decisions. InCandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alia Chabi Bose and another (AIR 1963 SCC 1430), it was held that, the object of the enquiry was to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint; but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements on oath Cr.R.P.No. 734/2018 4 made by the complainant and
