Kasturi & Sons Ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala and Jude Sajith D'Cruz

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, ``` # **`1944`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in CC 932/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,TRIVANDRUM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 6 IN C.C.:`** - `1 KASTURI AND SONS LTD. REPRESENTED MR. N.NAMBIRAJAN, KASTURI BUILDING, NO.859 AND 860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002, TAMIL NADU.` - `2 THE HINDU GROUP PUBLISHER- THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE, KASTURI BUILDING NO. 859 AND 860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002,TAMIL NADU.` - `3 RAGHUVIRSRINIVASAN, EDITOR-- THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE, KASTURI BUILDING NO. 859 AND 860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002,TAMIL NADU.` - `4 THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE, REPRESENTED BY RAGHUVIRSRINIVASA, VAMAN TECHNO CENTRE, A-WING, 7TH FLOOR, MAROL NAKA, MAKWANA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 059.` - `5 P. MANOJ,THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE, VAMAN TECHNO CENTRE, A-WING, 7TH FLOOR, MAROL NAKA, MAKWANA ROAD, ANDHERI(EAST), MUMBAI-400 059.` - `6 THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED MR. L.N. NAVANEETH, NO. 859 AND 860, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS.SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS SRI.C.VIVEK SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)` Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:2:- ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2JUDE SAJITHD'CRUZ, S/O ANTONY D'CRUZ, MANAGING DIRECTOR - DOWINS RESOURCES PVT.LTD, T.C.44/583, VALIATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SRI. A.SALINI LAL ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` PP SRI RENJITH GEORGE ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:3:- ## MARY JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1400 of 2021 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2022 ## O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by petitioners who are accused 1 to 6 in CC No.932/2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court XI, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the court below’). Petitioners seek to quash the order taking cognizance against them for offences punishable under Sections 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and C.C. No.932/2020 registered on its file. 2. The allegation against the petitioners was that they are responsible for publication of a defamatory news item dated 13[th] September, 2020 updated through the Website Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:4:- ‘thehindubusinessline.com’ under the head of “Crew change at Vizhinjam marred by a ship agent’s attempt to block rivals from taking up work” on 13.09.2020 which was alleged by the complainant as defamatory to the reputation and lowering the status of the complainant and his company. 3. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on the private complaint filed by the complainant and registered C.C. No.932/2020 on its file. Process was issued to the accused, and when served with, entered appearance through a counsel engaged by them. 4. Smt.Sreekala Krishnadas, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is nothing defamatory in the news item. It was only a factual rendering of the events that transpired and were reported in certain other news media as well. The name of the respondent is not mentioned in the news item. According to her, in the factual context, the news item published can by no stretch of imagination be construed as defamatory for it is published with utmost good faith and without any malafide intent. According to the learned counsel, the court Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:5:- below ought not to have taken cognizance on the private complaint, when allegations raised therein were totally insufficient to attract any of the offences for which, the prosecution is proposed. 5. It was urged that the news item allegedly defamatory was made in good faith and without any malafide intent to defame any one and the court below while taking cognizance has acted without applying its mind to the allegations raised, in it’s proper perspective. Since there was no reference about the name of the respondent in the allegedly defamatory news, the respondent has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the company namely Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. 6. It was contended that corporate entities cannot be prosecuted for offences for which mens rea is an essential ingredient and accordingly prosecution initiated against first, second and sixth accused without those being represented by any living person holding charge of and responsible for controlling its affairs, is bad in law. Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:6:- 7. Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is a separate legal entity and it must have been represented by a responsible person holding charge of it officially. Complainant in the case on hand is one Mr.Jude Sajith D’Cruz and he cannot be construed in the factual scenario of the case as an aggrieved person under Section 188 Cr.P.C since the primary allegation is that the defamatory statement published by the respondents harmed the reputation of the company of which, he is the Managing Director. 8.The learned counsel has relied on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221] to contend that while taking cognizance the court below overlooked the guidelines issued by the Apex Court to be followed while lodging complaints to prosecute accused for an offence of defamation. 9. The very intent of the news item published was to highlight the monopolistic and unfair trade practices and not to defame any particular individual. There is nothing available in the materials to show that the accused had shared a common intention to defame the complainant so as to attract common Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:7:- intention envisaged under Section 34 IPC. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the allegedly defamatory statement had affected the credentials of the company. The materials relied on by the complainant are also insufficient to establish that the allegedly defamatory statement was published by the petitioners for profits. 10.Per contra, Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that ingredients to attract the offences are incorporated in the complaint and the arguments of the petitioners to the contrary being without basis are only to be discarded. According to him, since cognizance was taken by the court below after forming a prima facie satisfaction from the allegations that offences alleged are made out and therefore, the petitioners have no other alternative than to establish their innocence and get rid of the criminal liability by facing the trial, that would commence shortly. 11. Copy of the complaint is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure A. It was found filed by Mr.Jude Sajith D’Cruz in his capacity as the Managing Director of Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:8:- ## M/s.Dowins Resources Private Limited. The relevant paragraph of the complaint incorporating the allegations is extracted hereunder : “9. It is to be noted that the 5[th] accused focused the Company of the complainant named Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd in the above said imputation. The averments and allegations raised against the said Company of the complainant are absolutely wrong and baseless. The accused in collusion with each other and jointly made the above said publication of imputation and forwarded the same to various persons including the relatives, friends, business colleagues of both of the accused and the complainant through the website of the 1[st] accused and pictured the complainant to be a highhanded, autocratic, tyrannical and oppressive local steamer agent in the Port Area and this was happened to be read by many of the members of the above said Association, business Colleagues and other shipping agents who spread across the country and they have called the complainant and talked in a rude manner so as to affect the dignity and status of the complainant and his company. The allegations raised against the complainant in the aforesaid imputation are absolutely wrong and defamatory and they are totally denied by the complainant. The complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony as the said allegations were happened to be read and known by the members of the Association led by the complainant, relatives and friends of the complainant and business colleagues and other shipping agents who spread across the country and the local people of Vizhinjam area in Thiruvananthapuram. The averments and allegations Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:9:- raised in the aforesaid imputation are absolutely unfounded, false, incorrect, baseless and defamatory. The accused in collusion with some vested interested people made wide publicity of the aforesaid allegations among the members of the above said Association, relatives, friends, colleagues, business colleagues and other shipping agents who spread across the country and general public with an intention to defame the complainant through the Website of the 1[st] accused and published or updated by the 5[th] accused.” 12. It was alleged by the complainant in the above extract that he had sent an e-mail communication to M/s.Atlantic Global Shipping Company to withdraw its decision to do the crew change directly within the Cochin Office at Vizhinjam Minor Port and requested to appoint any of the members of the Traditional Steamer Agents Association as local agent, as it happens elsewhere and is practiced across the country. 13. As per the allegations in the complaint, it was the 5[th] accused who pictured and narrated the same as a threatening e- mail asking Atlantic Global Shipping to drop its plan to carryout crew change on STI Precision and instead to appoint one of the Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:10:- members of the Association as local agent. It was stated by the complainant that the interpretation given by the 5[th] accused to the e-mail communication of the complaint is absolutely false and incorrect. The complainant in fact has not made any kind of threat by the e-mail communication. 14. As per the allegations the 5[th] accused caused the e-mail communication to be published in ‘Business line’ of 13.09.2020 and thereby focused the Company namely Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd., where the complainant, is the Managing Director. It is also a part of the allegations that the accused jointly and in collusion with each other made the above publication liable to cause imputation and forwarded the same to various persons including the relatives, friends and business colleagues of both the accused and the complainant through the website of the 1[st] accused and pictured the complainant as a highhanded, autocratic, tyrannised and oppressive local steamer agent in the Port area and caused it to be read by many of the members of the Association, business colleagues and other Shipping agents spread across the country. They have called the complainant and talked in a rude manner so Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:11:- as to affect the dignity and status of the complainant and his company. It was alleged that the complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony on account of the publication of the allegedly defamatory statement by the 5[th] accused. 15. An e-mail communication was allegedly sent by the Minor Port steamer agents Association and that was downloaded and published by the 5[th] accused and thereby the complainant suffered injury. True copy of the e-mail communication is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure B. As per the allegation the 5[th] accused published a news item in Business Line on the basis of the e-mail communication and the reputation of the complainant was much harmed and lowered by doing so. The e-mail communication being the basis of the News Item published by the 5[th] accused in Business Line, is extracted hereunder to have more precision and clarity. ## “ Request not to appoint strangers as agents in Vizhinjam Minor Port for crew change . Fri Sep 11, 2000 as 9:31PM MINOR PORT STEAMER AGENTS ASSOCIATION<minorportagents@gmail.com> Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:12:- ## To:”ops@atlanticshpg.com”<ops@atlanticshpg .com> BCC:tkumar@scorpiogroup.net,smm.info@scorpiogroup.net, smi.info@scorpio group.net Sir, We introduce ourselves as an organization registered under the Kerala Charitable Societies Act in the name and style Minor Port Traditional Steamer Agents Association to protect the welfare of the local steamer agent in the port of Vizhinjam Trivandrum. We are local steamers agents based in and around Vizhinjam and Trivandrum. Please note our members were struggling without any shipping work for the past 30 years. We Only had few vessels once in a while either in an emergency or for some repair work etc. But now due to the COVID 19 pandemic, we had some inquiries about whether crew change can be done through Vizhinjam port. But the Customs, immigration, and port authorities objected to give permission to do crew change through Vizhinjam anchorage and one of our members had gone to the Hon. High Court of Kerala and attained an interim order to do the crew change at Vizhinjam. And again for foreign national crew change also the same member has to approach the High Court and get another order to do the same. This much risk, money, and hardship we bore to make this crew change operation in Vizhinjam to success. Our organization has taken a decision not to entertain any newcomers/ strangers from any other ports to work as a Steamer agent in Vizhinjam Minor Port. The same was informed to Kerala State Maritime Board, Customs, and all concerned authorities. The port department had already informed this to your Cochin office. Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:13:- Ignoring this if you are again trying to do the clearance directly through your Cochin office we will be forced to obstruct the clearance of the crew and the vessel will be laid/held up for hours unnecessarily. We are not threatening you but we are just conveying our member's grievance. Also for avoiding any losses and damages for the owners in Cochin, Calicut and most of the other port in India the steamer agents association won't allow any new agencies to come and work in their local ports. So considering the above facts we request you to withdraw your decision to do the crew change directly with your Cochin office in Vizhinjam Minor port and we request you to appoint any of our members as your local agent. Hope you will consider our humble request.”” 16. As the heading indicates it is only a request from Minor Port Steamers Association not to appoint strangers as agents in Vizhinjam Minor Port for crew Change. It is specifically stated that the communication is not intended as a threat but only a request to maintain sustenance and survival of the members of the Association. 17. It was contended that the publication of the news item by the 5[th] accused was based on the e-mail communication Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:14:- extracted hereinabove. True copy of the news item is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure B. It is not discerned on a reading of the publication of the news that it was made after downloading the e-mail communication, by the 5[th] accused. 18. A reading of the News Item would reveal that the 5[th] accused had conducted the necessary survey prior to publishing it. The information received in the interview with the local public is also incorporated in the news item. The contents of the news item are extracted hereunder : “On July 2021, the Kerala High Court issued an interim order on a petition brought by Dowins Resources against the Union of India, Foreigners Regional Registration Officer(FRRO), Superintendent of Customs, Chief Commissioner of Customs and Vizhinjam International Seaport Ltd. In the petition, Dowins Contended that the demand of the Customs Department to pay light house dues of 92 per twentyfoot equivalent unit (IEU) as per the Light House Act, for crew change involving ‘Ever Globe” was “arbitrary and illegal” as the ship did not enter port limits or use any facilities of the light house. Hence, the Customs is not entitled to demand light house dues at Vizhinjam, it argued, adding that the light house dues are Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:15:- not collected during crew change at the outer anchorage of central government-owned Cochin Port Trust. Dowins also asked the court to direct the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) to facilitate immigration clearance for all future crew change at Vizhinjam, apprehending that FRRO may deny such clearances and hold up crew rotation. The High Court allowed Dowins to carry out crew change after complying with the standard operating procedures/protocols for controlled crew change prescribed by the Directorate General of shipping, immigration clearance norms, all other applicable rules and regulations and all other statuatory requirements. By asking other ship agents to secure similar orders from the court to help undertake crew change, the Customs Department has indirectly made sure that only Dowins gets the business at Vizhinjam, backing the court’s interim order which went against its own stand.” 19. It is clear from the above extract of the news item that the publication was based on information supplied by a person whose identity was not disclosed by the 5[th] accused. 20. Certain general remarks were made in the News Item published by the 5[th] accused against crew change carried out at Vizhinjam Port by local steamer agents. The reference about Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd in the news item was only about the legal battle, it had before a Court of Law seeking permission for Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:16:- crew change and the outcome of it. On a scrutiny of the above extract, this Court could not come across with any remarks harming or lowering the reputation of the company. 21. The e-mail was sent by the President and Secretary of Ports Traditional Steamer Agents Association. But, neither the association nor any persons representing the Association in their officiating capacity were arraigned as accused in the complaint. 22. The person arraigned as the complainant is none other than the Managing Director of Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. As per the allegation in the complaint, the reputation of the company namely Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. was injured among the public by the imputation created by the News item published. Therefore, the Company must have been the complainant and it being a legal entity, the Managing Director must represent it in the complaint. The 1[st] accused arraigned in the complaint is M/s.Kastur and Sans Ltd. The 2[nd] accused arraigned is none other than the Hindu Group, publisher of the Hindu Business Line. The 3[rd] accused is none other than Reghuvir, Editor of Hindu Business Line. The 4[th] accused is Hindu Business Line Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:17:- itself. The 5[th] accused is Mr.P. Manoj of the Hindu Business Line. The 6[th] accused is M/s.THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd, represented by Mr.L.Navaneeth. 23. The complaint only incorporates a reference that the 5[th] accused is involved. It did not incorporate a reference about the acts which could fasten them with criminal liability. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 are legal entities but, were not represented by any person holding official capacity therein. The 4[th] respondent is only a News Magazine wherein the allegedly defamatory statement was published. The official capacity in which the 5[th] accused represents ‘The Hindu Business Line’ is not disclosed from the cause title or from the body of the complaint. The complaint suffers for the above material flaws, which were omitted to be noticed by the court below while taking cognizance. 24. True copies of the sworn statement recorded from the complainant and his witnesses are also appended to the petition on hand as Annexures C1 to C5. In the sworn statement also the complainant has relied on the news item published in Hindu Business Line and extracted above as the basis to say that the Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:18:- name of his company has been injured. The witness examined only depose that the link of the news item published was sent to him by some of his friends through whatsapp and facebook and the link when opened was informed of the defamatory statement made by a company namely Atlantic against the company run by Mr.Jude that the latter has been doing Gundayism and trying to make a monopoly in the business. 25. But, the published news item already extracted above does not refer anything about ‘Gundayism’ spoken by the witness. The e-mail communication based on which the news item was published also does not indicate anything of the nature. 26. Therefore, the basis for the court below to take cognizance of the offences is not known. In the view of this Court, materials are not there to indicate prima facie, the role that is played by each of the accused in the alleged commission of the offence. The pleadings in the complaint are highly insufficient to attract the offence of defamation against the accused arraigned therein. Evenif the accused are let to face the Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:19:- proposed trial, it is unlikely to fasten any criminal liability upon them for commission of the alleged offence. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on South Indian Bank Ltd., Thrissur and Others v. Paul Vareed Cheruvathoor [2013 (4) KHC 742] to rest her contention that when a juristic person alone is arraigned as an accused without it being represented by a real person, mens rea which is an essential ingredient to attract an offence of defamation cannot be attributed to the juristic person and no offence of defamation would lie against it. 28. In South Indian Bank Ltd. supra, a bank incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act was arrayed as accused in a prosecution alleging commission of an offence of defamation and when jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C was invoked to quash it, this Court allowed the application filed for the purpose and held : “Admittedly, the first accused is a bank, registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and it is only a juristic person and not a real person. So, in such cases, mens rea cannot be attributed to a juristic person. If mens rea cannot be Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:20:- attributed to such person, then, no offence under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code can be attracted against such persons. In the case of statutory offences, a company can be made liable for the offence alleged under that Statute, where mens rea is not an ingredient to be proved. Wherein a Statute, it was specifically mentioned that a company can also be implicated as an accused under certain circumstances, then, a company can be proceeded against for such offences under that Statute as mens rea is irrelevant in such statutory offences committed by the company”. 29. In the case cited, Bank was the 1[st] accused and accused 2 to 9 were Directors of the Bank. The allegation that they had shared common intention to commit the offence of defamation when called for consideration, the court further held : “Since accused Nos.2 to 9 who are directors of the company, residing in different places and not parties to the writ petition mentioned in the complaint, in which accused Nos. 10 and 11 had filed the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that they have also shared the common intention with accused Nos.10 and 11, in preparation of the counter affidavit with an intention to defame the complainant. Except a vague allegation, there is no specific allegation in the complaint that they have any direct knowledge about the contents of the counter statement filed in the writ petition mentioned in the complaint. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that accused Nos.2 to 9 have shared the common intention of the deponent of the counter statement, making such an allegation and thereby they also can be implicated in the case as co-accused invoking Section 34 of the Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:21:- Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have shared the common intention with the person, who have sworn the counter statement which contains the alleged defamatory statement in order to make them punishable for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the case is allowed to proceed, in view of the discussions made above, no purpose will be served and it will only amount to abuse of the process of Court.” ## 30. Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar [(1998) 4 SCC 112] was also relied on by the learned counsel to contend that when a news item published by a reporter in good faith, it cannot be said that the publication was intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. The Apex Court held in the ## case : “Publishing the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were published for public good, in holding not liable for criminal defamation.” Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:22:- ## 31. Bennet Coleman & Co Ors. K Sarat Chandra & Ors. [1972 SCC(2) 788] was also relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant and the dictum reads : “That is suffice to say for such piece of attribution even not find place in the inter-departmental enquiry, per se cannot be said false and per se when cannot be said intentionally or knowingly or by reason to believe to disrepute and when per se cannot be said with malice and when per se shows within exception 8 to Section 499 IPC for the conduct of the complainant a public servant, by such press statement to the public who got lawful authority being rulers of the State By the people, For the people and Of the people and not even with sanction of the State Government through Public Prosecutor made the complaint when it is the conduct pointed out in the imputation while discharging public duty, when the Magistrate before taking cognizance from the material when supposed to consider as to the material on its face allows the case falls within the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, in not doing so in taking cognizance, same is nothing but a lame prosecution that cannot be allowed to continue in futility to make the accused to face the ordeal despite ends of Justice requires to quash the subserve.” ## 32. Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. and Others v. M.M. Lawrence and Others [2020 (3) KHC 512] is also relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant and dictum of which reads : Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 ## -:23:- “On a reading of the alleged defamatory statement, I am not in a position say that, these publications were made by the petitioners with any mala fide intention to tarnish the image of the complainant in both the cases. After going through the above statement, I am of the opinion that the publication of the statement of the 5[th] accused by the petitioners in both the Criminal Miscellaneous cases, are with any intention,knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. A mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge, or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. ” 33. The learned counsel for the accused has cited Rajdeep Sardesai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others [(2015) 8 SCC 239] to rest his argument that since cognizance has been taken by the court below after recording sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses, the only option for the accused is to face the proposed trial and to establish his innocence. 34. In Rajdeep supra, the question considered was whether in a prosecution wherein the defamatory statement had been alleged as made by an accused who is playing the role either as Editor/Publisher/Printer/Broadcaster/Advisor/Commentator etc. against a public servant, the court need to consider, whether Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:24:- grant of sanction would impose restriction on freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the Apex Court found in the negative and held that those are required to be determined during trial. 35. In Rajdeep supra, the alleged defamatory statement had been made by accused in respect of an act of public servant which was not connected with his public function and indisputably the allegations are sufficient to prima facie indicate that the accused had made a statement, defamatory to the complainant. 36. In the case on hand the allegations raised in the complaint and the facts sworn to by the complainant and witnesses examined are insufficient to attract the ingredients of the offence of defamation, the foundation upon which the prosecution is proposed. As per the allegations, statements made are intended to harm the reputation of a company namely Atlantic, but the complainant was not represented by any real person, in his officiating capacity. The complainant in the complaint (Annexure A) is Jude Sajith D’Crusz, the Managing Director of M/s.Dowins Resources Pvt.Ltd. The 1[st] accused is Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:25:- M/s.Kasturi and Sons Ltd., a juristic person, unfortunately not represented by a real person associated with it officially and holding a responsible position. Accused No.2 is the publisher of Hindu Business Line. Accused Nos.3 is the editor of Hindu Business Line and accused No.4 is Hindu Business Line itself. Accused No.5 is one Mr.P. Manoj associated with Hindu Business Line, but in what capacity is not stated. Accused No.6 is M/s.THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd., a juristic person, not represented by a real person. 37. The allegations raised in Annexure A do not refer about the role played by any of accused 2 to 6 in the commission of the offence of defamation. There is no reference in Annexure A about the common intention shared by any of them with the 1[st] accused in the commission of the alleged offence of defamation. The sworn statement cannot deviate from the allegations raised in Annexure A and incorporate anything in addition, to attract the ingredients of the offence or the role played by any of the accused in the commission of the offence. Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:26:- 38. Annexure A complaint suffers for not raising proper and precise allegations against each of the accused. It also suffers for not incorporating the company as the complainant represented by the present complainant. Annexure A also suffers for not incorporating special allegations on the role intentionally played by each of the other accused arraigned in the commission of the offence. Some of the accused were juristic person, but not being represented by real person. 39. The sworn statement recorded from the complainant and the witnesses being based on the allegations raised in the complaint itself and mostly in tune with, cognizance ought not to have been taken by the court below based on that. Cognizance taken by the court below undoubtedly was without application of mind to the facts sworn to before it. Therefore, taking of cognizance is bad in law. The circumstances do not warrant facing of trial by any of the accused based on the allegations in Annexure A, which itself are inadequate to attract the offence of defamation alleged. Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:27:- 40. The above discussion constrains this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A taken cognizance of by the court below and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto in CC No.932/2020 registered on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court XI, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed forthwith invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE. ttb Crl.M.C. No.1400 of 2021 -:28:- ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1400/2021`** ``` PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES : ``` ``` ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 932 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE DATED 11/09/2020. ANNEXURE-CCERTIFIED COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT. ```