Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29195
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.RAMKUMAR, J
V K RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
BIJU VARGHESE PRINTER AND PUBLISHER – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 554/2010
A magistrate must issue a reasoned order when dismissing a complaint at the pre-cognizance stage, clarifying jurisdictional issues in defamation cases.
Headnote:
Defamation - Private Complaint - IPC Section 500; Cr.P.C. Section 190, 200 - The court overturned a lower court's order rejecting a defamation complaint, emphasizing the need for a speaking order at the pre-cognizance stage and clarifying the legal jurisdiction pertaining to defamation claims.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner challenged a lower court's rejection of a defamation complaint under IPC Section 500, claiming the defamatory statement was published within the jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower magistrate failed to provide a clear rationale for rejecting the complaint, leading to an unjust dismissal at the pre-cognizance stage without valid reasons.
Issues: Whether the lower court improperly rejected the defamation complaint without a intelligible explanation and outside its jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint deserves thorough consideration, and a lower court must provide a speaking order even when inclined to reject it; thus, the rejection was inappropriate.
Final Decision: The order rejecting the complaint was set aside, and the magistrate was directed to reconsider the complaint.
ORDER
The revision petitioner who is the complainant in Crl. M.P.
No. 3319 of 2009, challenges Annexure A2 order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva rejecting the complaint. Annexure A1 is the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the two counter petitioners alleging an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC for having allegedly published defamatory statement in the Mangalam daily of which the 2nd respondent therein is the Printer, Publisher and Editor and the 1st respondent therein is the person who allegedly made imputations against the petitioner. When the complaint came up for consideration before the Magistrate on 26.11.2009, the Magistrate passed the following order:-
“This is a petition filed u/s 190, 200 Cr.P.C by the petitioner.
2. Today the case came up for consideration the court passed the following:-
Rejected as the printing and publishing of the alleged report was not done under the jurisdictional limits of this court and the matter is one with political connotations and one which is touching public questions.”
2. I am not able to understand as to what the Magistrate meant by the expression 'political connotations' and 'touching public questions'. There is a specific averment towards the end of the complaint that the statement made by the 1st accused in the Mangalam daily dated 21.07.2009 was read by the complainant and others within the limits of the Angamali Police Station which is one of the territorial limits assigned to the learned Magistrate. The impugned order cannot be sustained since the complaint has been rejected at the pre cognizance stage by a non-speaking order. Even assuming that the court below was inclined to reject the complaint at the threshold, it should have passed a speaking order giving reasons which are discernible to a superior court. That has also not been done. I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondents 2 and 3 since the complaint was rejected at the pre-cognizance stage. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to deal with the complaint in accordance with law.
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
