Sebastian Paul vs Shri P.R. Ashokan

G.Girish, J

The accused in C.C.No.728 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, a lawyer cum journalist, has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the said case.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he made a speech at a gathering of journalists in Thrissur on 20.10.2016 denigrating the lawyer community and thereby committed the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The above speech was made at a time when there existed strife between the lawyers and journalists in Kerala in connection with some incidents of tussle between them. According to the complainant, a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram, who preferred a private complaint against the petitioner and 54 other persons associated with the main stream and online media, the petitioner compared the lawyer community with street dogs in the above speech which was published and telecasted by the print and visual media throughout Kerala. The above complaint was taken into files by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and summons ordered to all the accused.

The accused Nos.2 to 8, accused Nos.16 to 19, accused Nos.34 to 37 and accused Nos.49 to 52 had filed Crl.M.C.No.4139/2017, Crl.M.C.No.5383/2017, Crl.M.C.No.5352/2017 and Crl.M.C.No.6185/2017 respectively before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against them in S.T.No.3/2017 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. As per order dated 20.02.2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the above petitions and quashed all further proceedings against the respective petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 8, accused Nos.16 to 19, accused Nos.34 to 37 and accused Nos.49 to 52) in the said cases.

In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the comments made by him in the controversial speech at Thrissur on 20.10.2016, even if proved, will not be sufficient for proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 500, 501 and 502 I.P.C, and hence it is highly necessary to quash the proceedings in S.T.No.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against him. It is further contended that this Court already found in the order dated 20.02.2018 in Crl.M.C.Nos.4139, 5383, 5352 and 6185 of 2017, which is reported in Law Journals [Malayala Manorama Company Limited and Others v. Deepak J.M and Others (2018 KHC 160 : 2018 (1) KLT 928 : ILR 2018 (1) KER 886 : 2018 (2) KLJ 304)], that the complainant cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C when the group which he is representing cannot be brought within the category of class of persons within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 I.P.C. Upon the above grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

Inspite of repeated notices issued from this Court, the first respondent did not care to advance arguments at the time when the case stood posted on various posting dates for hearing.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

The substantial offence alleged against the petitioner in the private complaint which gave rise to S.T.No.3/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. The offence of defamation is defined in Section 499 I.P.C which is extracted hereunder:

“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 excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”

As per Explanation 2 under Section 499 I.P.C, an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such may amount to defamation. The question to be looked into in this case is whether the lawyer community which the petitioner referred in his controversial speech could be termed as an association or collection of persons as envisaged under the aforesaid Explanation.

To decide the above aspect, an analysis of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C which deals with prosecution for defamation, is highly necessary. As per the aforesaid Section, a complaint made by some persons aggrieved by the offence has to be there for a court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of I.P.C. Thus, the matter to be looked into is whether the complainant could be considered as a person aggrieved by the offence, which is said to have been committed by the petitioner by making a speech derogatory to the lawyer community.

A reading of the averments in the original complaint filed by the first respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram would go to show that the petitioner did not refer to the entire lawyer community while making the alleged disparaging remarks in the controversial speech. On the other hand, what had been mentioned by him was the so-called violent behaviour displayed by a group of lawyers who were involved in the fight with journalists. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner himself is a lawyer having practice in various courts including this Court. Thus the controversial remarks made by the petitioner in his speech on 20.10.2016 cannot be said to be one intended to denigrate the entire lawyer community. As such, it cannot be said that the above remarks of the petitioner had caused harm to the reputation of the first respondent as a member of the lawyer community. When viewed in the above perspective, it is not possible to conclude that the first respondent is a ‘person aggrieved by the offence’ as contemplated under sub Section (1) of Section 199 Cr.P.C.

In Malayala Manorama Company Limited and Others v. Deepak J.M and Others (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had dealt with this aspect in detail. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in G.Narasimhan v. T.V.Chokkappa [(1972) 2 SCC 680] and S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Another [(2010) 5 SCC 600], it has been held in the aforesaid decision that the collection of persons against whom the petitioner made the controversial remark cannot be said to be an identifiable body making it possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. Upon the above findings, it was concluded in the aforesaid decision that the complainant (1st respondent herein) cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 (1) Cr.P.C., and the group which he is allegedly representing, cannot be brought within the category of ‘class of persons’ within the meaning of Explanation 2 of Section 499 I.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.Nos.4139, 5383, 5352 and 6185 of 2017 were quashed as per the order dated 20.02.2018. The finding of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid cases that the complainant (1st respondent herein) cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C is perfectly applicable in the case against the present petitioner as well. That being so, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner has to be allowed.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in CCNo.715/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, are quashed.