Hassan Faisy and others v. State of Kerala and Dr. Hassan Thangal

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1039 OF 2016 ``` ``` [IN THE MATTER OF C.C.NO.1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM] ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3, 5,6 AND 8 TO 15:` ``` 1T.HASSAN FAISY AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, ERANHIPPALAM JUMA MASJID, ERANHIPPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673006 2A.V. ABDURAHIMAN MUSALIYAR AGED 70 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, DARUSSALAM ARABIC COLLEGE, NANDI POST, KADALUR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 3K.T.M. BASHEER MASTER AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN MUSALIYAR, PANANGANGARA POST, RAMAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679350 4G.M. SALAHUDEEN FAISY AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ABDUL JABBAR FAISY, M.K. HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN 679336 5P.A. SADHIQUE FAISY AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, ‘SATHYADHARA' FORTNIGHTLY ISLAMIC CENTRE, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001 6BHAHAVUDEEN MUHAMMED NADVI AGED 65 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED JALALUDHEEN MUSALIYAR, DARUL HUDA ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY, HIDAYA NAGAR, CHEMMAD POST, MALAPPURAM 7PINANGODE ABOOBACKER AGED 60 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, SAMASTHALAYAM, CHELARI, THENHIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673636 8VAKKODE MOIDEENKUTTY FAISY AGED 66 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, DARUL NAJATH ISLAMIC CENTRE, PUNNAKKAD POST, KARUVARAKUNDU, PIN 676523 9ALAVI FAISY AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUNHAYAMU, KOLAPARAMBU, KARKKIDAMKUNNU POST, ALANALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678602 10M.K. KODASSERI FAISY AGED 65 YEARS ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 2 ``` S/O.MUHAMMED, MARKKASU, THARBIYATHUL ISLAMIYA, POST KAARTHALA, AATHAVANADU, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676552 11HAMSA RAHMANI AGED 43 YEARS S/O.UNNEEN, KONDIPPARAMB POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN 679322 12FAISAL HUDABI AGED 37 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MARIYAD POST, POOKKOTTOOR, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676121 13P.K. LATHEEF FAISY AGED 53 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, SUNNI MAHAL, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676519 BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAMADAS SRI.T.SIVADASAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:` ``` 1DR.HASSAN THANGAL AGED 49 YEARS S/O.SAYD MUHAMMED JALALUDEEN AATTAKOYA THANGAL @ CHEMBATTIMMADA AATTAKOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAPURA PUTHIYADVEEDU HOUSE, ANDROTH, UTI OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN 682551 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. S.RAJEEV R2 BY SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2024, THE COURT ON 15.02.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 3 ## `O R D E R` ``` This Crl.M.C is filed by the accused Nos.1 ``` ``` to 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 15 in C.C.No.1145/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. The prayer sought is to quash all proceedings in the said Calendar Case as against the said petitioners. ``` ``` 2.The said Calendar Case was instituted on ``` ``` the basis of a private complaint submitted by the 1[st] respondent herein alleging offences ``` ``` punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the ``` ``` Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused ``` ``` persons. Annexure-I is the complaint submitted ``` ``` by the 1[st] respondent, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance thereon for the offences ``` ``` referred to above, and the same is now pending trial. The basic allegation in the said ``` ``` complaint is to the effect that the petitioners, along with the other accused, have published a ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 4 " - `book titled as` സത്യസരണിയുടെ� ചരി്ᩔസാ്ᩌ്യം സമ്ᩜ 85-)o വാർഷിക�ാപഹാരം-2012 _”_ `which contained an article published by the 1[st] accused wherein certain` ``` defamatory statements were made against late ``` ``` Sayyid Mohammed Jalaludheen Attakoya Thangal @ Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and late P.P. ``` ``` Sayyid Mohammed Fazal Pookoya Thangal @ Pookoya ``` ``` Thangal. The 1[st] respondent/complainant is the son of the sister of the said persons. According to the complainant, certain statements contained ``` ``` therein, which are at pages 439 and 667 to 670 of the said book are expressly and impliedly against the reputation, dignity and good name of the above deceased persons. ``` ``` 3. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the statements contained in the said book which are referred to in the complaint, would not attract the offences alleged against them. Therefore, it was contended that the entire proceedings are a futile exercise and are ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 5 ``` abusive of the process of the court. However, ``` ``` without properly applying the mind, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Crl.M.C is filed in such circumstances. ``` ``` 4.Heard Sri.T.Sivadasan, the learned ``` ``` counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. ``` ``` S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the ``` ``` 1[st] respondent and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. ``` ``` 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, under no circumstances, the statements highlighted in Annexure-A1 complaint can be treated as defamatory statement which would attract the offences referred to above. According to him, the book was published as a collection of various articles written by the ``` ``` various persons concerned, about the historical ``` ``` emergence of Sathyasarani propagatedby ``` ``` “Samastha Kerala Jam’eyyat ul-Ulama” (Samastha). ``` ``` It was pointed out that, ‘Samastha’ is an ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 6 ``` association of eminent scholars who enjoy ``` ``` highest support base among Kerala Muslims. They conduct an organize various programs aimed to propagate and spread the rites and beliefs of Islam according to the real view of Ahalu Sunnah Wal-Jama’ath,to legally prevent the ``` ``` organizations and campaigns which are against such rites thereby to look after all the rights and powers of the Muslim community in Kerala, to ``` ``` promote and encourage religious education and do the needful for the secular education that will be compatible with religious beliefs and culture. As part of the objectives of the said ``` ``` organization, they rigorously opposed many thareeqaths that emerged in the State from time to time. The persons referred to in the ``` ``` extracted portion of the article namely Sayyid ``` ``` Mohammed Jalaludheen Attakoya Thangal @ ``` ``` Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and late P.P. ``` ``` Sayyid Mohammed Fasal Pookoya Thangal @ Pookoya ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 7 ``` Thangal were the propagators of one such ``` ``` Thareeqaths, namely “Shamseeya Thareeqath”. The basic idea and beliefs propagated as part of the ``` ``` said Thareeqath were against the common belief of Islam and various objections have been raised ``` ``` by the religious scholars in the meetings conducted by the “Samastha” at various places at ``` ``` various occasions. The publication which are the ``` ``` subject matter of this case were made in ``` ``` connection with the resolutions and articles published in the commemorative volumes in relations with the 85[th] Annual Conference of ``` ``` “Samastha”. ``` ``` 6.It was also pointed out by the learned ``` ``` counsel for the petitioners that, there had been ``` ``` a long dispute between the followers of ``` ``` “Shamseeya Thareeqath” and the followers of ``` ``` “Samastha” with regard to the practices that were being followed by the “Shamseeya ``` ``` Thareeqath”. As early as in 1986, the Khasi of ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 8 ``` Androth had declared that “Lakshadweep Shariyath ``` ``` Pravarthaka Sambarka Samithi” founded by late C.M.Attakoya and subsequently headed by ``` ``` P.Puthiyaveedu Pookkoya Thangal were following anti-islamic activities and therefore they were excommunicated from Islam as they were adherents to “Shamseeya Thareeqath”. The said dispute was the subject matter of Crl.RP No.10/1987 and Crl.M.C.No.42/1987 which were disposed of by ``` ``` this Court by order dated 09.04.1987 which is reported as Attakoya Thangal v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep [1987(1)KLT 762]. Thus, it was ``` ``` pointed out that, there was a long standing conflict of ideas between the “Samastha” and followers of “Shamseeya Thareeqath” and the contents of the articles published in the said publication was with respect to a fair criticism ``` ``` of the practices followed by the “Shamseeya Thareeqath”. It was pointed out that, those expressions were made in the said article by the ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 9 ``` publishers with the intention to give a message ``` ``` to the members and followers of “Samastha” and the Muslim community as a whole, with regard to ``` ``` correct practices which are to be followed and to oppose the non-Islamic practices that were being propagated in the name of the said ``` ``` Thareeqath. Therefore, it was pointed out that, ``` ``` being a fair criticism of the ideas and practices followed by the propagators and ``` ``` followers of “Shamseeya Thareeqath”, under no ``` ``` circumstances, such statements would fall under the category of defamatory statements so as to warrant a criminal prosecution under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. ``` ``` 7.According to the petitioners, it was an ``` ``` expression of the truth concerning them, and the same was being propagated for the public good, namely, for the benefit of the members and ``` ``` followers of the Muslim community as a whole. ``` ``` Therefore, the offences are not made out even if ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 10 `the allegations contained in Annexure A1` ``` complaint are accepted for its face value, contends the learned counsel for petitioners. The learned counsel also places reliance upon ``` ``` the decisions inState of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde[(2014)3 SCC 659)], Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai v. State of Gujarat [2014(4) KLT SN 26 (C.No.32)SC, Kesava Menon v. Bindu [2021(2) KLT 381] and G.Narasimhan and Others v. T.V.Chokkappa [AIR 1972 SC 2609]. ``` ``` 8.The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] ``` ``` respondent opposes the said applications. It is pointed out that, the contentions raised are questions of facts which are to be raised and considered during the course of trial. It was ``` ``` pointed out that, among the statements referred ``` ``` to in the complaint, there are certain specific statements which raise personal allegations against Sri.Chemmbattimmada Attakoya Thangal and late P.P.Sayyid Mohammed Fasal Pookoya Thangal. ``` ``` It was pointed out that, under no circumstances, ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 11 ``` those statements could be treated as the ``` ``` statements amounting to fair criticism or assertion ``` ``` of the truth with the intention to protect the public good. Therefore, it was pointed out that, as the contentions basically raised by the petitioners are by seeking the protection of the exceptions contained under Section 499 of IPC, the adjudication of the same are beyond the scope of a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. As regards the allegations raised in the ``` ``` complaint, the 1[st] respondent is to be granted an opportunity to establish the same during the trial by adducing evidence and denial of the said opportunity by prematurely terminating the proceedings invoking the powers under section ``` ``` 482 Cr.PC is not at all proper. The learned counsel places reliance upon the decision in M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037], K.M.Mathew v. K.A.Abraham and Ors.[2002(3)KLT 282(SC)] and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021(2)KLT OnLine 1039(SC)]= [2021(3) KLT ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 12 ``` SN (C.No.3)SC].In such circumstances, the learned ``` ``` counsel for the petitioners seeks dismissal of the Crl.M.C. ``` ``` 9.Thus, the crucial question that arises is whether the petitioners have established a case for invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. For considering the said question, a careful reading of the statements, which according to the 1[st] respondent, were defamatory, ``` ``` are to be carefully scrutinized. The English ``` ``` translation of the relevant statement as extracted in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. are as ``` ``` follows: ``` ``` “Page 439, Column 2,Paragraph-4: “I read the letters received from various centers against the Shamsiya Thareeqath, which is propagated by one Pookoya Thangal of the Androth Island and as the said Thareeqath is wrong one and astray, Muslims shall not contact or co-operate with it” ``` ``` Page Nos.667-670:“Shamsiya Thareeqath”:- ``` ``` “Another criticized Thareeqath is Shamsiya. It is one Chempattimmada Attakoya who came up with this Thareeqath in 1962. The Jamiyyathul Himayathu- Saree- Al-Islamiya which is a council of Islamic ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 13 ``` Scholars in Lakshadweep had revealed the anti- shareeath movements and exploiting attitudes of this Thareeqath at that time itself. The Thareeqath was a short cut method for making money to attakoya, who travelled across different areas of India as a physician. Many ignorant people were trapped in his talkativeness. The decision of the Lakshadweep Shareeath Samrakshana Samithi about Shamsiya Thareeqath reads as follows: “It was unanimously decided that the organization named Shamsiya Thareeqath, which was established by Champattimmada Attakoya Thangal and is led by Puthiya Veettil Poookoya now, is Kufriyath (Nihilism) due to the following reasons: ``` ``` (1) Chempattimmada Attakoya Thangal told that he is in the Wahdathul Wujood and hence Swalath (5 times compulsory prayer) is forbidden for him, in the presence of s.s.Fathahulla Thangal and P.P. Puthiyathan Attakova Thangal. ``` ``` As long as one attained majority and is sane, he will not reach to a position of the compulsions and prohibitions of Sharah being moved away from him. The argument that the compulsions and prohibitions of Sharah is not applicable to those, who have reached the culmination of love of God and have got purity of heart and also have separated Eeman (belief in God) from falsehood and because of big sins they will not be sent to the hell and his Ibadath (worship) is not the external worship but instead it is the thoughts, is wrong way ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 14 ``` and Kufriyath (Nihilism) (Sharahul Akkaid) (name of a text). One, who gives up the compulsory five times’ prayer denying its compulsion is Kafir (Nihilist) (Thufa) (name of a text). ``` ``` 2. In a speech conductged in the presence of Poyilam Koya, who is a follower of Attakoya, it was told that it is reported in Huthuhathul Makkiya (name of a text) that for the purpose of the confirmation of the truth looking at the sun is permitted and it was questioned by A.I. Pookoya and the matter reached the Juma Masjid of the locality and there was a debate on the issue. Poyilam Koya, P.P. Pookoya, U.P.KasimKoya,PoyilamKunhikoya represented one side and A.I. Pookoya Thangal, S.S, Yousuf Koya Thangal and late A.B. Koyammukoya Thangal represented the other side and Bemmatha Biyyapura Attakoya Thangal was the judge in the debate and it was agreed by them that the confirmation of truth cannot be obtained without the Ibadath (Worship) and looking at the sum as anIbadath(worship)iskufriyath (Nihilism). ``` ``` 3. The Maalappattu (a kind of Mappila song praising the abilities of somebody) named “Nahfathul Ali Fee Midhathil Jalali” made by Poyilam Koya and written by the present Khaliph P.P. Pookoya in Hijra Year 1397 is a proof for the fact that they are still in such a belief. ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 15 ``` 4. They had voluntarily gone out of the Islam as they told in the speeches of last Ramzan that the respected scholars are Kafirs (one who knowingly denies the God). The above decisions wre taken by the Shariat Protection Council in the year 1986. ``` ``` 5. Crossing the sea this Thareequath reached Kerala also. It is Mr.P.P. Pookoya, who came to Malabar with this Thareeqath. Pookoya who reached in a Mosque at Cheruvannur in Calicut as a Musafir (traveller) made friendship with the Musaliyar, who was an employee of that Mosque. He introduced his Thareeqath to the Musaliyar. The Musaliyar, who was attracted by the words of Mr. Pookoya, became a propagator of the Shamsiya Thareeqath, which was fakely formed in the name of Khadiriya Thareequath. Thus the Thareeqath bacame popular among the laymen. The said Musaliyar reached Kalloor near Puthanathani in Malappuram District from Cheruvannoor, Suppressing his actual intention he became popular in that locality. When he was convinced that the majority of the people are ready to obey his instructions, he started his work. There is one more reason for his popularity. The Alloor Juma Masjid, which had been in the possession of the Mujahid Sect, was possessed by Sunni Sect, due to the effort of them. Taking advantage of thesesupportingcircumstances,the ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 16 ``` Musaliyar declared him (P.P.Pookoya) as a holy man of that locality. He instigated the people to join his Thareequath. He set up a college and made the propagating activities of this Thareequath active. The support of the elite people and the youth accelerated their growth. ``` ``` 6. Certainly the prayer (compulsory five times’ prayer) prevent the people from the evil and the forbidden things is what the Quran says. But those who offer prayer now a days are the spokesmen of all the evil activities. So they contended that the prayer (compulsory five times’ prayer) is not the actual prayer as contemplated in Quran and Sunnath (tradition of the prophet). They made their followers accept that looking at the sun at the time of sunrise and sunset is a good deed. ``` ``` 7.As and when the Fathwa of the counsel of scholars of Lakshadweep against them came out “Raeesul Muhaqiqeen Kanniyath Usthad” (name of a scholar) accepted it. Later, when this fake Thareeqath was propagated in Kerala also the scholars decided to defend and defeat it. E.K.Hassan Musaliyar, Thenhipalam Sainudheen Musaliyar etc, tried their level best against the Shamsiya Thareeqath. Even a public meeting was organized against them at Puthanathani. Kanniyath Usthad declared that “they are the workshippers of sun” in the public meeting in which Kanniyath Usthad (name of a Scholar) Shamsul Ulama (name of a ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 17 ``` Scholar), Kottumala Usthad (name of a Scholar) and such great Scholars were present. Because of the opposition from “Samastha”, they could not withstand for along”. ``` ``` 10.As referred to above, the specific ``` ``` contentions raised by the petitioners are to the effect that the said statement can only be treated as a fair criticism of the practices ``` ``` followed by the persons referred to above. It ``` ``` was also pointed out that, the contents of the said publication was not particularly against the Thareeqath propagated by the persons ``` ``` referred to above. But on the other hand, it was ``` ``` a criticism and objection against several forms ``` ``` of “Thareeqaths” such as “Korur Thareeqath”, ``` ``` “Chottur Thareeqath”, “Shamseeya Thareeqath”, ``` ``` “Noorisha Thareeqath” “Aluva Thareeqath” etc, ``` ``` where the Shamaseeya Thareeqath was only one among the same. Therefore, it was contended that, a reading of the entire article as a whole, would convey a clear impression that, it ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 18 ``` was only a critical study of those “Thareeqaths” ``` ``` keeping in view of the ideologies, activities and opinion of eminent contemporary scholars about the propounders of the various Thareeqaths. Hence, the same would not attract any of the offences. ``` ``` 11. While considering the said question, it is to be noted that the scope of a proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC is limited. As held in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd’s case (supra), ``` ``` the powers of quashing the proceedings should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and it ``` ``` should be exercised in ‘rarest of rare cases’. It was also held in the said decision that, when the court exercises powers under section 482 ``` ``` Cr.PC, it has only to consider whether the offences are made out from the averments in the complaint and the court is not required to ``` ``` consider on merits whether or not the merits of ``` ``` the allegations make out an offence. Therefore, ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 19 `the question that has been raised by the` ``` appellant as to whether statements which are subject matter of proceeding impugned in this ``` ``` case, were part of a critical study or not, is a ``` ``` question to be decided during the course of trial. This is particularly because, the contentions raised by the petitioners are mainly to the effect that, what they have stated in the publications, are imputation of truth concerning ``` ``` them and the same was propagated for furnishing information to the members and followers of “Samastha” to identify which are the correct religious practices and which are not. ``` ``` Therefore, it was intended for public good. ``` ``` 12.However, the crucial aspect to be ``` ``` noticed in this regard is that,such a contention is a defence available to the petitioners, by virtue of the exceptions contained in Section 499 of IPC. As far as the sustainability of the said contention is concerned, it can only be ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 20 ``` treated as a matter for trial. It is to be noted ``` ``` in this regard that inSubramaniam Swamy v. Union of India [2016(7) SCC 221), the challenge as against the statutory provision under sections 499 and 500 IPC in terms of its constitutionality was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was upheld through a very detailed judgment. After referring to a large number of decisions and detailed discussions, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, for the purpose of availing the benefit of first exception to section 499 of IPC which deals with imputation of truth concerning any person which were made for public good, the burden to establish the same is upon the accused. Moreover, it was also held in the said ``` ``` decision that, for claiming the benefit of the first exception, both aspects referred to ``` ``` therein ie. the ‘truth’ and ‘public good’ are to be satisfied. In the first exception to section ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 21 ``` 499 IPC itself, it is clearly stipulated that whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Here, in this case, even though, the materials placed before this Court would make out a strong prima facie case as to the existence of a public good, I am of the view that, that by itself cannot be treated as a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. The prima facie case in favour of the petitioners as to public good emerges because the specific case of the petitioners is to the effect that, the imputations made in the said article were with the intention to give clear message to its followers as to what are the correct religious practices to be followed in tune with the religious test and the opinion of the religious scholars. In other words, through the said publication, the petitioners were only intending to highlight the contradictions in the practices followed by the said Thareeqaths ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 22 ``` against the common beliefs and practices of ``` ``` Islam. Therefore, it could be interpreted as a statement made with the intention of public good ``` ``` i.e. the public good as far as the believers of ``` ``` Islam are concerned. However, still a final conclusion on the same cannot be taken in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC, as the ``` ``` ultimate decision could be taken on the basis of evidence, being a question of fact. ``` ``` 13. Even if it is assumed that, the ``` ``` statements with reference to the religious practices followed by Shamseeya Thareeqath were something which were established to be within ``` ``` the exception to section 499 IPC, one crucial aspect to be noticed is that, the statements ``` ``` referred to in the complaint contains certain allegations touching upon the personal character ``` ``` of the persons referred to therein. The learned counsel for the 1[st]respondent ``` ``` specifically highlighted this aspect and the ``` ``` said statement referred to by the learned ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 23 ``` counsel for the 1[st] respondent is as follows: ``` " വിമർശന വിക�യനായ മടെ�ാരു ത്വരീഖ്ᩈാണ് ശംസി്ᩞ. ആൻക&ാത് ദ്വീപു�ാരനായ ടെച്ᩘ്ᨾി്ᩜ� ആ�ക�ായയാണ് 1962 ഈ ത്വരീഖᩈ᪎മായി രംഗ്ᩚകവശനം ടെച്ᩓത്. ഈ താരീ�്വ്ᩈിടെ1 ശരിയ്ᩈ് വിരു്ᩍ നീ്ᨪ്ᨲടെ5യും ചൂഷണ മകനാഭാവടെ്ᩈഴും ല്ᩌ്വദ്വീപിടെല പ്ᩄിതസഭയായ ജംഇ്ᩞᩈ᪎ ഹിമായതീസരീ അൽ ഇ്ᩪാമിയ . അ്ᨪാലᩈ᪎തടെ@ തുറᩐ᪎ �ാ്ᨾിയിരുᩐ᪎ ചി�്ᩜ�നായി ഇ്ᩌ് ടെ� വിവി� ഭാഗ്ᨲ5ിൽ സ്ᨸരി്ᨴ ആ�ക്ᨪായ �നസ്ᩘാദന്ᩈിന് . �ടെH്ᩈിയ കുറുᨪ᪎വഴിയായിരുᩐ᪎ ത്വരീഖ്ᩈ് ഇ്ᩞാളുടെ� വാചാലതയിൽ പല പാപ്ᩖാരും ടെപᨾ᪎കപാഴി. ഷംസിയ ത്വരീ�്വതിടെന സംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ് ല്ᩌദ്വീപിടെല ശരിയ്ᩈ് സംര്ᩌണ സമിതിയുടെ� . തീരുമാനം ഇ്ᨲടെന വായി്ᨪാം ടെച്ᩘ്ᨾി്ᩜാ� ആ�ക്ᨪായയാൽ ്ᩝാപിതമായതും ഇകSാൾ പുതിയ വീ്ᨾിൽ പൂക്ᨪായ കനതൃത്വം വഹിᨪ᪎@തുമായ ഷംസിയ ത്വരീ�്വ്ᩈ് എ@റിയടെSടു@ ്ᩚ്ᩝാനം താടെഴ പറയു@ �ാരണ്ᨲ5ാൽ കുഫ്‌രീയതടെ@ᩐ᪎ ടെത5ിവു�ളുടെ� “ . അ�ി്ᩝാന്ᩈിൽ ഐ�്യ�ക്ᩄന തീരുമാനിᨴ᪎ ``` 14. Thus, a reading of the said statement would indicate that, it contains certain personal references about the parties concerned. Whether the said statements were imputation of truth is a matter which cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC. In M.N.Damani’s case (supra), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as ``` ``` follows: ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 24 ``` “At this stage, we cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence punishable under section 500. It is the settled legal position of law that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence under Section 499 triable by the Magistrate. The Magistrate prima facie came to the conclusion that the allegation might come within the definition of ‘defamation’ under section 499 IPC and could be taken cognizance of. But these are facts to be established at the trial. The cases set up by the appellant are either defences open to be taken or other steps of framing a charge at the trial at whatever stage known to law. Prima facie we think that at this stage it is not a case warranting quashing of the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class at Nasik. To that extent, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC.” ``` ``` 15.Moreover, as observed above, apparently, ``` ``` the contentions raised by the petitioners are to ``` ``` the effect that they are taking resort to the exceptions to section 499 of IPC and the same can only be considered during the course of the trial as it is beyond the scope of the powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. ``` CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 25 ``` In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Crl.M.C and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that, the observations made in this order were only intended to find out whether the petitioners have made out a case for invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Under no circumstances, the said observations can be binding on the trial court and the contentions raised by either parties shall be considered by the trial court on its merits untrammelled by any of the above observations. ``` Sd/- ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` pkk CRL.MC No.1039 of 2016 26 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1039/2016` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I:TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 18.12.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC COURT, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE THE ARTICLE "THAREEQUA; CHOOSHAKARKETHIRE ICHASAKTHIYODE" WRITTEN BY SRI. HASSAN T. KARUVARAKUNDU AND PUBLISHED AT PAGES 663 TO 677 OF THE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SAMASTHA IN COMMEMORATION OF 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ANNEXURE III:TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 26.02.2015 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS THE 1ST ACCUSED IN CC.NO.1145/2014 FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM. ```