Sujatha P.G. vs K.P. Krishnakumar and Another

C.T. Ravikumar

The petitioner is the 6th accused in C.C. No. 170 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent herein is the complainant therein. This Carl. M.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-A complaint and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Annexure-A complaint was filed against one K. Venue, Editor, Printer and Publisher of Generator Publications Ltd., Theorizer, Janet Frieda and P.S. Hairy, Reporters of Stomachache Fortnightly, Align Wreathed Blossom, LB. Armadas and the petitioner herein, as accused in that order, alleging commission of offence u/s 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 are the employees of the Karla water Authority. The complainant, at the time of filing the complaint was an Executive Engineer in the Karla water Authority. According to him, he was also an office bearer of several service organizations in different capacities, such as General Secretary of Graduate Engineers Association, Karla Water Authority, Secretary of Association of management Professionals in Public service, Honoraria Treasurer of Indian Water Works Association, Karla Centre and Honoraria Treasurer of Institution of Public Health Engineers, Karla Centre, Executive Committee Member of the Karla Rose Society, Vice President of Seething Seamark Trust and President of National People''s Society and Cultural Society.

Annexure-A complaint, the first respondent herein stated that he was the Assistant Executive Engineer of Water Supply Sub Division, Nightwalkers during the period from 27.8.1987 to 3.10.1991 and that during the said period, precisely from 1.5.1989 to 3.10.1991, the 4th accused Smut. Alwyn Reetha Blossom was the Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Section which was under his administrative jurisdiction. Apart from that, they never worked together in the same office at any point of time. While so, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram registered FIR No. 12 of 1997 against the 4th accused and three of her subordinates under Sections 409, 466, 468, 201 read with Section 120(b) LP.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with swindling of pumps and motors of pump worth Rs. 17.5 lakhs of pump houses, Uchakkada. Thereupon, the 4th accused was suspended from service as per order dated 33.1998 on the very same set of allegations as part of departmental proceedings. The 4th accused felt that it was the first respondent who was instrumental for the registration of the aforesaid crime and thereafter, with a view to wreak vengeance against him, she colluded with accused Nos.5 and 6 (the petitioner herein) and started filing complaints. Initially the 4th accused approached the Kerala Womens'' Commission by filing a complaint against him and on receipt of notice, he appeared and apprised the Commission of the falsity of the allegations- While so, to his shock and distress he saw a news item in Sameeksha Fortnightly published from 13th March, 2001 which is a

photograph of the 4th accused with a darkened face was given. The said news item contained false and highly defamatory imputations calculated to disparage the reputation of the first respondent herein. In Annexure-A complaint, it is specifically stated that it was with the malicious intention to harm and lower his reputation and with the knowledge that the publication of the said news item would lower his reputation among the public, that it was published and that accused Nos,4 to 6 were the source of the said libellous news item. The libellous statements in the said news item were explicitly set forth in Annexure-A complaint in Malarial. A perusal of the same would show that it specifically named him and portraits him as a pander, a womanizer besides the man behind the Five star brothel by name ''Short stay Central. The news item also contains an imputation that it was his strong higher-up relations that has frozen action against 83 corrupted employees including Engineers who were suspended in 1993.

The news item also contains another imputation that he insisted the petitioner to have sexual intercourse and when she refused to yield to him, she was transferred and he is also sending sots to abuse and attack her. Imputation of being extravagant and indulging in discreditable conducts were also made against him. The said scandalous and scurrilous statements are per se defamatory and publication of the same were effected with the malicious intention to expose him to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt and they had done so with the knowledge that they would harm his reputation. In feet, those libelous statements in the news item published had injuriously affected him. Annexure-A complaint was filed with these and certain other specific averments.

The petitioner who is the 6th accused contended that Annexure-A complaint did not contain any specific allegation against her and, therefore, there was no material before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint in so far as she is concerned. That apart, it was contended that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as correct, that would not constitute an offence of defamation as against her. Based on the same, it was contended that continuance of the proceedings in C.C. No. 170 of 2003 against the petitioner would amount to gross abuse of process of the court and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 170 of 2003 pursuant to Annexure-A complaint be quashed.

Everyone cherishes an image of oneself in the eyes of others as of vital value and the law recognizes the same. Therefore, one cannot have a right to blot that image of others. Therefore, a calumniator who vilifies others'' esteem cannot be permitted to escape its consequences. I may, now, scan Annexure-A complaint to see the verity of the contentions raised by the petitioner. For that purpose, the ingredients of the offence of defamation has to be looked into. They are;

(i) the making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person (ii) such imputation must have been made

(a) by words either spoken or intended to be read or

(b) by signs

(c) or, by visible representations and

(iii) such imputations must have been made with the intention of harming, or knowing, or having reason to believe that it would harm the reputations of the person against whom it is made.

In this case, the scandalous and scurrilous statements were published in the Sameeksha Fortnightly. The alleged libelous statements were explicitly set forth in Annexure-A complaint in Malayalam and the imputations therein are indisputably directed against the first respondent. I have already adverted to the gist of those imputations and they, among other, portraits him as a pander, a womanizer and above all, as the man behind the Five star brothel by name ''Short stay Centre''. A perusal of Annexure-A complaint would reveal that every single allegation extracted from the Sameeksha Fortnightly is pointedly made against the first respondent. Those imputations, according to him, are false and baseless and were made with the knowledge that they would harm his reputation, that too, with such malicious intention. He has specifically averred that the imputations have injuriously affected him. Whether they are otherwise per se defamatory? At any rate, having gone through Annexure-A complaint, including the extract of the allegedly libelous statements, I cannot uphold the contentions of the petitioner that it carries no allegation of commission of defamation against her and that even if the entire allegations are taken as correct, they would not constitute an offence u/s 499 of the Indian Penal Code against her. In a case of publication of defamatory matter, the persons who are the actual source of information''s cannot escape the consequence of being liable for libel as all persons contributing in the commission of defamation are jointly and severally liable for such commission. According to me, Annexure-A complaint carries the essential ingredients prima facie to constitute an offence alleged against the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that there were no prima facie materials for taking cognizance in respect of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code are applicable in this case, besides availability of other defences. I am afraid, I cannot go into the question of applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the other defenses which may be available to the petitioner at this stage in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. since in the circumstances obtained in this case, it cannot be said that continuance of the proceedings in C.C. No. 170 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Thiruvananthapuram would amount to an abuse of the process of the court or that it is necessary to do so, in the interest of justice. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no reason or ground to interfere with the proceedings in C.C. No. 170 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the Carl. M.C. is dismissed. I may also hasten to add that dismissal of this Carl. M.C. will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise the question of applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and or any other defenses that may be available.