Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFIR and proceedings quashed; Criminal Miscellan...

Abdul Majeed Kalanad v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 8483 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-15
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; all further proceedings in C.C. No.1023/2019 (Kasargod JFMC) arising from Crime No.462/2019 are quashed. On the basis of the Annexure A2 final report and the cited authorities, the court held that Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is not attracted, and the FIR constitutes abuse of process of the court.
Final Disposition
FIR and proceedings quashed; Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Majeed Kalanad

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • I.V. Pramod
  • • K.V. Sasidharan
  • • Saira Souraj P.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • I.V. Pramod
  • • Vipin Narayan, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.462/2019 at Kasaragod Police Station and the connected CC 1023/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. Abdul Majeed Kalanad, editor of Kasaragod Vartha, faced a charge under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act for publishing online news alleged to be defamatory against Amruth Milk. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and the news items are true; even if accepted, the offence under 120(o) would not be attracted. The prosecution relies on various authorities, including Annexure A2 final report, to justify the charges. The Court examines whether the essential ingredients of Section 120(o) are met, citing prior decisions on the scope of Section 120(o), including Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala, Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala, and Monish v. Jayaraj P.C. The judge ultimately holds that the acts alleged do not constitute nuisance through a means of communication and that the registration of the crime amounts to abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR and the ongoing proceedings are quashed and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011Section 153 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Abuse of the process of the Court
  • Essential ingredients of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act: causing nuisance through means of communication

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the online news item published by Kasaragod Vartha is defamatory and that the entire prosecution rests on an assertion that the petitioner published the material in a manner that caused nuisance. Even if the allegations are true, the ingredients of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are not established; the act of publishing news online does not inherently amount to nuisance through a means of communication and cannot be equated with an offence under 120(o). The petitioner relies on jurisprudence including Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala (2019) (4) KLT 808, Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala (2023) (3) KHC 324, and Monish v. Jayaraj P.C. (2020) SCC Online Ker. 13404, and a prior decision in Crl.M.C.No.1242 of 2018 to urge quashing of the FIR and proceedings as abuse of process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution contends that publishing defamatory online content against a company’s manager can constitute nuisance through a means of communication, satisfying the ingredients of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. They argue that the matter warrants investigation and continuation of the case to determine whether the publication caused nuisance to the complainant. They rely on the factual matrix and statutory provisions to justify maintaining the proceedings and contending that the 120(o) offence can be made out once the essential elements are proved at trial.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala2019 (4) KLT 808PositiveThe court relied on Sajidh D. to hold that merely sharing a Facebook post cannot be treated as a responsible act; the essential ingredients of 120(o) require nuisance through means of communication.
Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala2023 (3) KHC 324PositiveThe decision discusses the scope of Section 120(o) and supports the view that the offence requires a nuisance element via a communication medium.
Monish v. Jayaraj P.C. and Another2020 SCC Online Ker. 13404PositiveCited as relevant jurisprudence clarifying the application of Section 120(o) in similar factual contexts.
Crl.M.C.No.1242 of 2018Crl.M.C.No.1242 of 2018PositiveCited as an earlier ruling addressing the ingredients to attract Section 120(o).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Majeed Kalanad v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 24TH BHADRA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 8483 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1023/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ABDUL MAJEED KALANAD, AGED 48 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, EDITOR, KASARAGOD VARTHA, KASBA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD K.V.SASIDHARAN SAIRA SOURAJ P. ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031. BY ADV. I.V. PRAMOD BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of September, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.1023/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod arising from Crime No.462/2019 of Kasaragod Police Station. 3. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 3 Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused published defamatory news in Kasaragod Vartha an online news against Amruth Milk where the defacto complainant is the manager. The allegation against the petitioner is that the Amruth Milk Company did not give advertisement to the news paper. It is submitted that the allegations are absolutely false and the news items given in the news paper are true. It is also submitted that, all the channels of Kerala also gave maximum publicity to the said news. It is also the case of the petitioner that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is not attracted. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed. Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 4 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Annexure A2 is the final report submitted by the police. It will be better to extract the contents in Annexure A2 final report: “ Charge u/s 120 'o' of KP Act 1-)o സസാകക്ഷി മസാനനേജറസായക്ഷിട്ടുള്ള വവൈററ്റ്ഫഫൽഡ്സറ്റ് ഡയറക്ഷി വപ്രൈവൈററ്റ് ലക്ഷിമക്ഷിറഡറ്റ് എന്ന സസാപതക്ഷിനന ഉൽ ൽ പന്നമസായ അമൃതറ്റ് മക്ഷി കറ്റ് എന്ന നപ്രൈസാഡകക്ഷിനനേതക്ഷിനര പ്രൈതക്ഷി എഡക്ഷിററസായക്ഷിട്ടുള്ള കസാസറനഗസാഡറ്റ് വൈസാർത എന്ന ഓൺവലൻ പത്രതക്ഷിൽ 18/07/19 തഫയ്യതക്ഷി അപകഫർത **ക** ർ ്ഷിരമസായ വൈസാ ത പ്രൈചരക്ഷിപക്ഷിച്ചതറ്റ് വൈഴക്ഷി പ്രൈതക്ഷി നകരള നപസാലഫസറ്റ് ആകറ്റ് 120 'O ' പ്രൈകസാരരം ശക്ഷികസാർഹമസായ കുറരം നചയക്ഷിരക്ഷിക്കുന. _”_ 7. Even if the entire allegations in the above case are accepted in toto, I am of the 5 Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 opinion that the offence under Section 120(o) of the Police Act is not attracted. This Court considered the same point in the judgment dated 08.09.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.1242 of 2018 about the ingredients to attract Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: _“10. In_ _**Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (4) KLT 808],** this Court observed that, the act of the petitioner - sharing the Facebook post - cannot be considered as a responsible act done by him. This Court in_ _**Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 324]** considered the scope of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 once again. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment;_ _“12. The remaining question is whether S.120(o) of the Police Act, is_ Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 6 _attracted in the present case. The Section reads as ‘if any person, causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger shall be punished on conviction. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 120(o) of Police Act is that a person causes nuisance of himself to any other person through a means of communication. The allegations in the FIR do not indicate that petitioner caused a nuisance of himself by posting a modified word in the WhatsApp group. In this context, it is necessary to observe as mentioned earlier that the word “_ വൈട “ _is not a defamatory word, nor is it a word which has a tendency to cause a nuisance. In the above circumstances, the offence under Section 120(o) of Police Act is also not made out._ _13. In this context, reference to the decisions in Sajidh D. v. State of_ Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 7 _Kerala, 2019 (4) KLT 808 and in Monish v. Jayaraj P.C. and Another, 2020 SCC Online Ker. 13404 are also relevant._ _14. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that even if the allegations in Crime No.942/2022 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam are admitted, they do not make out an offence either under S.153 IPC or under S.120(o) of the Police Act. Consequently, the registration of the crime is an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, FIR No. 942/2022 of Paravoor Police Station is quashed._ _The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.”_ ” In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that, Annexure A2 final report against the petitioner is unsustainable under Section 120(o) of the Police Act. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is 8 Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.1023/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod arising from Crime No.462/2019 of Kasaragod Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.8483 of 2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8483/2019** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 462/2019 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE MARKETING MANAGER OF AMRUTH MILK AND THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE MAGISTRATE. ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 462/2019 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE