Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27764
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, J
JOSE D''CRUZ @ MOSAS – Appellant
Versus
B ANIL KUMAR ADVOCATE PAVARMATHI – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. CASE 5012/2008
Rejection of a private complaint does not inhibit the right to pursue claims of defamation separately.
Headnote:
Defamation - Dismissal of Complaint - Cr.P.C Section 203 - The court upheld the lower court's decision, clarifying that rejection of the complaint does not preclude the petitioner from initiating defamation proceedings against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
A private complaint for defamation was rejected by a Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court. The petitioner challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the complaint did not prevent the petitioner from pursuing defamation claims against the accused.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the complaint by the lower courts barred the petitioner from initiating separate defamation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a dismissal under Cr.P.C Section 203 does not restrict the rights of the petitioner to file a defamation complaint.
Final Decision: Crl.M.C. dismissed, rights to file defamation complaint preserved.
O R D E R
A private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed (rejected) by the learned Magistrate. That rejection/dismissal was challenged before the Sessions Court in revision. The learned Sessions Judge in revision upheld the action of the Magistrate clarifying that it amounts to rejection of the complaint and not a dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance?
3. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to initiate proceedings against the accused persons for having committed the offence of defamation against the petitioner. The impugned orders, it may be clarified, would not fetter the rights of the petitioner to complain of such culpable conduct of defamation allegedly indulged in by the respondents/accused.
4. I have gone through the complaint and the impugned orders.
In the complaint it is not alleged and the courts below have not considered the question whether any act of the accused would amount to defamation or not. In these circumstances if the petitioner has a grievance that the accused or any of them has defamed him by making any defamatory imputations, the impugned orders cannot and shall not stand in the way of the petitioner initiating proceedings against such accused persons, who are alleged to have indulged in the culpable act of defamation against the petitioner.
5. Tthis Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the observation that the dismissal of this petition or the impugned orders shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to complain about defamation, if any, committed by the accused or any of them against him. Needless to say, such allegations will have to be considered seriously by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision will have to be taken on such complaint, if any, filed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge tm
