Kerala Kaumudi (Pvt.) Limited v. Janardhana Kurup and Yasoda and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/5TH CHAITHRA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 2168 of 2012 (A)** **--------------------------------------[AGAINST S.T.NO. 196/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM]** **............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:** **----------------------------------------------** ## **1. KERALA KAUMUDI (PVT.) LIMITED,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIMALA NIVAS, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM- 691 006.** ## **2. DEEPU RAVI,** **THE EDITOR PRINTER & PUBLISHER, KERALA KAUMUDI (PVT) LIMITED, VIMALA NIVAS, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM- 691 006.** **3. RAVI PRINTERS & PUBLISHERS (PVT) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIMALA NIVAS, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM- 691 006.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & 1ST ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. JANARDHANA KURUP,** **S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, SARAYU, CHENKOOR MURI, VALINALLOOR VILLAGE, CHERUVAKKAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -691 533.** ## **2. YASODA,** **RESIDING AT AKSHAIA, AGASTHYAKODU, ANCHAL P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM- 691 306.** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2168/2012-A:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MIDDAY DAILY OF KERALA KAUMUDI DATED 20.07.2009.** **ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23.7.2009 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.** **ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.08.2009.** **ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN ST. NO.196/2011 ALONG WITH THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATECOURT, KOLLAM.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2168 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-4 complaint in S.T.No.196/11 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, which was filed by the 1[st] respondent for offence u/s.500 of IPC, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The petitioners 1 and 3 are Managing Directors and 2[nd] petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Kerala Kaumudi Flash. The petitioners are engaged in publication of Daily news papers, weeklies, Magazines etc. The allegation against the petitioners is that the 2[nd] respondent filed a complaint against 1[st] respondent before Women's Commission and in the Adalath held at U.P. School, Cutchery junction, Kollam and a news was published Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 2 by the petitioners in the midday daily on 19.7.2009, which is defaming the 1[st] respondent. In the circumstances, he filed a complaint in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition to quash Annexure-4 complaint invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 3. The 1[st] respondent's allegation in the complaint was that he is the District Project Officer, SSA, Kollam District. He is a person of dedicated service and fame and leading very decent life. He is a well known teacher, educator and got National Award from NCERT for three times. While the 2[nd] respondent was working as a Trainer at the BRC, Punalur on deputation from Education Department, Malappuram District, the 1st respondent was the controlling officer over her official duties. Due to dereliction of duty, he initiated departmental action against her. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against the 1[st] respondent before Women's Commission alleging false case. Subsequently, the petitioners published a news on Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 3 20.7.2009, which amounts to defamation against the 1[st] respondent. In the circumstances, he filed Annexure-4 complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. Hence, the petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners are limited companies represented by the Managing Directors and they are entitled to get privilege under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. According to that Act, the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper are responsible for the news publication and they are liable for the same. He also contended that as per Section 7, the petitioners are not liable for the act alleged in Annexure-4 complaint by virtue of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Moreover, they are entitled to get the privilege of 4[th] exception of 499 IPC. The learned counsel relied decision in _**K.M. Mathew**_ v. _**State of Kerala and another**_ [(1992) 1 SCC 217]. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 4 respondent contended that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. According to the Companies Act, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to furnish details as to who are responsible person and in charge of the company affairs at the time when the publication was made. Unless and until production of such documents, the contention put forwarded by the petitioners is unsustainable in law. The publication made by the petitioners is per se defamatory and they are not eligible for any benefit of Section 7. 6. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company and if so, they are liable to be prosecuted on allegation in Annexure-4 complaint. 7. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent powers can be exercised only for the three grounds mentioned therein, i.e., Inherent jurisdiction to make such Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 5 orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. Apex Court in Monica Mumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 8 SCC 781] held that inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Apex Court in _**State of Haryana**_ V. _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held as follows: “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”. 8. Here, the 1[st] respondent's allegation in the trial court was that while he was acting as District Project Officer, SSA, Kollam the 2[nd] respondent was a teacher working under his control. Her work was not satisfactory and since there was dereliction of duty, the 1[st] respondent reported the matter to the superior officers for taking action against the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, in Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 6 vengeance towards the 1[st] respondent, she filed a petition before the Women's Commission and on 19.7.2009, the Women's Commission conducted a Camp sitting at Government Town Upper Primary School, Kollam, where 1[st] and 2[nd] petitioners were invited. On the next day, the petitioners published a news in their midday daily, which according to the 1[st] respondent, is defamatory. 9. It is true that as per Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the printer, publisher and Editor are the responsible persons in respect of the news publication. Here, the 2[nd] petitioner is the editor of the newspaper and he is responsible for the general policy of the day-to-day affairs of the newspaper. Even though the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent contended that no documents have been produced to show that 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners are companies represented by its Managing Directors, I approve the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners are not liable as per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of 7 Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 Books Act, 1867. Therefore, the proceedings against 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners is liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The 2[nd] petitioner is the Editor Printer and Publisher. The defacto complainant, who is the 1[st] respondent, can proceed against the 2[nd] petitioner as per law. In future, if any documents reveal that the responsible person, as per the Companies Act, is some other person, the 1[st] respondent is at liberty to implead that person in proper time and if such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider such application and dispose the matter according to law. Hence, invoking the inherent jurisdiction, I quash proceedings against petitioners 1 and 3. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is partly allowed. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 8 Crl.M.C.No.2168/12 9