Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish, J
Ajmal Hussain Kn – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh T Kuruvilla – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 462 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ameen Hassan K., Rebin Vincent Gralan
For the Respondents: Millu Dandapani, Githesh.R
Defamation under S.499 IPC requires the existence of intent or knowledge to harm reputation; mere publication of an incident based on a bona fide belief that one has been defrauded, aimed at identifying the perpetrator, lacks the necessary mens rea to constitute criminal defamation.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge against the dismissal of a criminal complaint for defamation under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner alleged that a social media post and subsequent news report depicting him leaving a restaurant without paying a bill were defamatory. The lower court dismissed the complaint under S.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing the exception for truth published for public good. The main issue is whether the essential ingredients of defamation, specifically the intention or knowledge of harm, are satisfied when a person publishes an incident under the genuine belief of being defrauded. The court reasoned that in the absence of mens rea and with the primary motive being the identification of a person believed to have committed fraud, the elements of defamation are not established. The court further clarified that the exceptions under S.499 of the Indian Penal Code need not be reached if the core requirement of mens rea is absent. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint regarding criminal defamation and the dismissal order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. absence of mens rea negates the offence of defamation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2026, THE COURT ON 15.06.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Annexure-A7 order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 203 Cr.P.C, is under challenge in this revision petition. The offence alleged in the aforesaid complaint against respondents 1 to 3 herein is under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts are as follows: On the New Year eve of 2023, the petitioner and his family went to a restaurant owned by the first respondent for having the dinner hosted by his friend Gopakumar. After the dinner, the petitioner and his family left the place under the expectation that the food bill would be paid by his friend Gopakumar. However, the above said Gopakumar omitted to pay the bill pertaining to the dinner expenses of the petitioner and his family. The first respondent, upon taking note of the non-payment of the bill amounting to Rs.3,344/-, uploaded a post in Facebook and Instagram with the screenshot of the CC TV image of the petitioner, commenting on the acts of certain persons resorting to non-payment of the restaurant bills after consuming food, which would in effect, amount to cheating the workers of the restaurant. In the aforesaid post in social media, the first respondent stated that the persons involved in hotel business should be cautious of such deceptions being perpetrated by fraudsters. Taking note of the above social media post, the petitioner’s friend Gopakumar went to the above said Restaurant and paid the food bill of the dinner consumed by the petitioner and his family. The above social media post of the first respondent has been reported as a news item in the third respondent news broadcasting channel under the Editorship of the second respondent. The publication of the social media post by the first respondent, which was again recast in the third respondent News Broadcasting Channel, has caused defamation to the petitioner, who is holding high profile status among the public, and maintaining good reputation with an elaborative influence in the society at large. Hence the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents 1 to 3 calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakh and to tender an unconditional apology which has to be published in the third respondent News Broadcasting Channel. Since the respondents did not abide by the aforesaid demand, the petitioner instituted the complaint before the Court below. The learned Magistrate, after proceeding with the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C with the examination of the complainant and his witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence of defamation envisaged under Section 500 I.P.C is not attracted since the objectionable act in the aforesaid social media post and news was, in fact, a depiction of truth. Accordingly, it was held by the learned Magistrate that the aforesaid acts will come within the purview of the first exception to Section 499 I.P.C. For the above reason, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Court below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The fact that the petitioner herein, who took dinner with his family from the restaurant of the first respondent, in the night of 31.12.2022, had left the place without making payment of the bill, is not disputed. There is also no case for the petitioner that the first respondent was aware of the identity of the petitioner at the time when he left the restauran
