Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. v. M.M. Lawrence; Janasakthi Weekly v. M.M. Lawrence

Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.2044 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 62/2011 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**THE MALAYALA MANORAM COMPANY LTD.**| |---|---| ||**HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001.**| |**2**|**MAMMEN MATHEW**| ||**EDITOR, MALAYALA MANORAMA PRESS, MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM-686001.**| |**3**|**PHILIP MATHEW,**| ||**MANAGING EDITOR,**| ||**MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD.**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686 001**| |**4**|**SHIBU VAYALAKATH**| ||**THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM-**| ||**686001.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)**| ||**SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**M.M.LAWRENCE**| |---|---| ||**AGED 85 YEARS**| ||**S/O.MATHEW (LATE), MADAMAKKAL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682017.**| |**2**|**K.R.GOURI**| ||**KALLUPURACKAL, KALATHIPARAMBIL, CHATHANAD.P.O.,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA.**| |**3**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM.**| ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN** Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.E C BINEESH-PP G.P.SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0403-2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1549/2016, THE COURT ON 06-03-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.1549 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 61/2011 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2044/2013 DATED 10-01-2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 JANASAKTHI WEEKLY T.C.28/2070, OPP.FORT HIGH SCHOOL, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **2 G. SAKTHIDHARAN, PRINTER, PUBLISHER & EDITOR, JANASAKTHI WEEKLY, T.C.28/2070, OPP.FORT HIGH SCHOOL, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **3 N. SUGATHAN PROFESSOR, MANAGING EDITOR, JANASAKTHI WEEKLY, T.C.28/2070, OPP.FORT HIGH SCHOOL, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **4 BABU BHARADWAJ JANASAKTHI WEEKLY, T.C.28/2070, OPP.FORT HIGH SCHOOL, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 M.M.LAWRENCE S/O MATHEW (LATE), MADAMAKKAL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 017** - **2 K.R. GOWRI KALLUPURACKAL KALATHIPAERAMBIL, CHATHAND PO, ALAPPUZHA-688 91** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-** Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 4 **03-2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2044/2013, THE COURT ON 06-03-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JJ** ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2020 ## **ORDER** The above two cases are filed to quash two defamation cases, in which the complainant and 5[th] accused are common. Complainant is a nonagenarian and the 5[th] accused is centenarian. Complainant and the 5[th] accused are politicians. 2. An interview of the 5[th] accused came in the publication of the Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. and Janasakthi weekly. According to the complainant, certain portion of the interview published by Malayala Manorama and Janasakthi weekly are defamatory to him and hence he filed two complaints as C.C.No. 61 of 2011 against Janasakthi weekly and C.C.No.62 of 2011 was filed against the Malayala Manorama Company. Both cases are filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 6 Court, Ernakulam and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC. Since the complainant is common and the issue to be decided is also common, I dispose these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases by a common judgment. 3. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.62 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No. 61 of 2011. 4. In Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013, the allegation is that, an article was printed and published by the petitioners therein in the Malayala Manorama weekly 2009 vol.19 book No.19 in page 22 under the caption 'Atmakatha'. It was the Malayala Manorama Weekly Annual 2009, published in connection with the Onam celebration in September 2009. In that article, with a separate sub heading, certain passage has been Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 7 published and according to the complainant, the imputations are about him and the same are false and incorrect. According to the complainant, the same is _per se_ defamatory. The relevant portion of the article relied by the complainant is extracted here under: " പപാർടട്ടികക്ക് വവേണട്ടി വേപാങട്ടിയ കടടം " എറണപാകുളത്തു വദേശപാഭട്ടിമപാനട്ടി എഡട്ടിഷൻ തുടങ്ങുവേപാൻ വവേണട്ടി അമ്പതട്ടിനപായട്ടിരടം രൂപ വേവീതടം രണ്ടുവപവരപാടു കടടം . വേപാങപാൻ പപാർടട്ടി എവനപാടക്ക് പറഞ എലലൈറക്ക് രപാഘവേവനപാടുടം എറണപാകുളതത്തെ ഷപാപക്ക് വകപാൺടപാക്ടർ ഭപാസ്കരവനപാടുടം . അൻപതട്ടിനപായട്ടിരടം രൂപ വേവീതടം ഞപാൻ കടടം വേപാങട്ടി കുവറകപാലൈടം . കഴട്ടിഞട്ിടം പപാർടട്ടി തട്ടിരട്ടിച്ചു തകപാടുത്തെട്ടില എതന്റെ അകക്കൗണട്ടിലുള്ള പണവടം മറടം വചേർത്തെക്ക് ഇരുപത്തെട്ടിഅയപായട്ടിരടം രൂപ ആദേദടം എലലൈറക്ക് രപാഘവേനക്ക് . തകപാടുത്തു പപാർടട്ടി വകപാൺഗ്രസട്ടിനക്ക് മുവനപാടട്ടിയപായുള്ള സടംസപാന വകപാൺഗ്രസട്ടിൽ ഞപാനപായട്ടിരുന്നു സസപാഗത സടംഘടം . തചേയർമപാൻ അനക്ക് ഇരുപത്തെട്ടിഅയപായട്ടിരടം രൂപ വേവീതടം തവേചക്ക് . എലലൈറക്ക് രപാഘവേനടം ഭപാസ്കരനടം സടംഭപാവേന തന്നു രസവീതക്ക് . എഴുതട്ടി ആ പണടം അവേർക്കു തതന തട്ടിരട്ടിച്ചു തകപാടുത്തു വകപാൺഫറൻസക്ക് കഴട്ടിഞ ബപാകട്ടി വേന പണടം തകപാണക്ക് എറണപാകുളടം ജട്ടിലപാ കമട്ടിറട്ടി ഒരു കപാറടം എടംഎടം വലൈപാറൻസക്ക് . ഇവപപാൾ തപാമസട്ടിക്കുന സലൈവടം വേപാങട്ടി പട്ടിതന ഞപാൻ . ലപസ ഉണപാകട്ടി ഭപാസ്കരതന്റെ ലപസയുടം തട്ടിരട്ടിച്ചു തകപാടുത്തു " ............................. ഗക്കൗരട്ടിയമ മപാത്രവമയുള്ളുതവേനക്ക് ## 5. According to the complainant, accused Nos.1 ## to 4 have printed and published the same with Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 8 malafide intention and without taking due care and caution. According to the complainant, the aforesaid allegations are made and published with the intention to tarnish the image of the complainant. 6. Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 was filed by the Janasakthi weekly, its Printer, Publisher, Managing Editor etc to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The above case was filed by the complainant against the Janasakthi weekly and its office bearers for an article published in the Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication 2009. An article was printed and published by accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.61 of 2011 in Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication, 2009 dated 20.8.2009 in connection with the Onam celebration in September, 2009. In that article also with a sub heading the following statements are published . "…... , സഖപാവേക്ക് എടംഎടം വലൈപാറൻസക്ക് ഗക്കൗരട്ടി അമയുതട നവേതട്ടി നപാളട്ടിൽ ഒരു ചേപാനലൈട്ടിൽ പ്രതദക്ഷതപടക്ക് ഗക്കൗരട്ടിയമതയ . വേളതര ഇകഴട്ടി സടംസപാരട്ടിചതപായട്ടി കണ്ടു എടംഎടം വലൈപാതറൻസക്ക് Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 9 എതന . നട്ടിനട്ടിവചപാതട ഞപാൻ അയപാളുതട വേകതയപാന്നുടം . . എടുത്തെട്ിട്ടില ഞപാൻ ആരുവടയുടം ഒന്നുടം എടുത്തെട്ിട്ടില ഞപാൻ പട്ടിരട്ടിച കപാശുതകപാണപാണക്ക് അയപാൾ തപാമസട്ടിക്കുന വേവീടട്ടിരട്ടിക്കുന . പറമ്പു വേപാങട്ടിയതക്ക് ഞപാൻ പപാർടട്ടി വകപാൺഗ്രസട്ടിതന്റെ സസപാഗതസടംഗടം തചേയർവപഴ്സൺ ആയട്ടിരുനവപപാൾ പട്ടിരട്ടിചതട്ടിൽ ബപാകട്ടി വേന കപാശുതകപാണപാണയപാൽ സലൈടം . വേപാങട്ടിയതക്ക് എവനകപാൾ മുൻവപ പപാർടട്ടിയട്ടിൽ . വേനതപാതണനക്ക് പറഞതക്ക് ശരട്ടി ഞപാൻ 47 ൽ അവല . . വേനതക്ക് അയപാൾ ഇടപള്ളട്ടി വകസട്ടിതന്റെ കപാലൈത്തുടം അയപാൾ . അതട്ടിൽ പ്രതട്ടിയപാണവലപാ ഞപാൻ പപാർടട്ടിയട്ടിൽ വചേർനവപപാവഴ . . വനതപാവേപായട്ടി അനക്ക് പഠട്ടിചവേർ കുറവേക്ക് ഞപാൻ ബട്ടി എ ബട്ടി . എൽ കപാരട്ടിയപാണവലപാ അയപാവളപാടക്ക് അധട്ടികതമപാന്നുടം പറവയണ . . എനക്ക് പറയ ഞപാനടം ചേട്ടിലൈതതപാതക പറഞ വപപാകുടം 7. According to the complainant, the accused in the case published and circulated the same with the common intention of defaming the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 500 IPC. 8. The accused in both cases want to quash the proceedings contending that, there is no intentional act on the part of them to defame the complainant and it is only an interview of the 5[th] accused in both cases, which is being published by the petitioners in their publication. Moreover, they also contended that, a Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 10 reading of the imputations alleged to be against the complainant, the same will not amount to an offence under Section 500 IPC. Hence, they wanted to quash the proceedings pending before the lower court. 9. Heard the senior counsel K.P.Dandapani for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.2044 of 2013 and Adv.P.Sanjay for the petitioners in Crl.M.CNo.1549 of 2016. Advocate Rajan Babu appeared for the 5[th] accused who are arrayed as 5[th] respondent in both the cases. Heard Adv.T.D.Robbin for the complainant. 10. It is conceded before this court at the time of argument that, the dispute between the complainant and 5[th] accused are settled out of court. The counsel for the complainant submitted that, he has no grievance against the 5[th] accused in the case, in the light of a settlement arrived between the complainant and the 5[th] accused. Therefore, what remains is the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.Nos. 61 of 2011 and 62 of 2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 11 Magistrate,Ernakulam. The counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners in both cases should publish an apology for publishing the article. The counsel for the petitioners in both the Crl.M.Cs are not ready for the same and they want a decision on merit in this case. Hence, I have to consider the issue on merit. 11. It is a case in which an interview of the 5[th] accused was published by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in both cases. Complainant alleged that a portion of the publication is per se defamatory to him. Admittedly, after filing the cases, the dispute between the complainant and 5[th] accused is settled out of court. In such circumstances, according to me, there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners in this Crl.M.Cs. 12. Moreover, a reading of the alleged defamatory statements which is extracted above, I am not in a position say that, these publications were made by the petitioners with any malafide intention to tarnish the Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 12 image of the complainant in both the cases. In **V.S.Achuthanandan v. Kamalamma (2008(3) KLT 346)** this Court held that, if the publication is not with any malafide intention, no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out. In **Maman Mathew v. Radhakrishnan M.N (2007(4) KLT 833)** this court observed that 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. 13. A reading of the article published by the petitioners in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, it can be seen that it is a statement given by the 5[th] accused. 5[th] accused has not denied the statement even before this court, even though she stated that, the matter was settled between by her with the complainant. After the complainant settle the issue with the 5[th] accused in both the cases, I see no reason to Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 13 continue the prosecution against the petitioners simply because the statement of the 5[th] accused is published by the petitioners. 14. Moreover, I perused the alleged imputation, which aggrieved the complainant to file the complaint, which is extracted in the earlier paragraph. Going through the statement it can be seen that the 5[th] accused gave a statement that the balance amount collected in connection with the Party Congress of the party in which the complainant and 5[th] accused were working was utilized for purchasing a car to the Ernakulam District Committee of the CPI(M). It is also stated that the land in which the complainant now reside is also purchased using the said amount. This is the crux of the issue which leads to the complaint. After going through the above statement, I am of the opinion that the publication of the above statement of the 5[th] accused by the petitioners in both the Criminal Miscellaneous cases, are with any intention, knowledge Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 14 or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. In such circumstances, according to me, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners who are the publishers in the two cases pending before the lower court are abuse of process of court, especially in the light of the fact that the dispute between the complainant and 5[th] accused are settled out of court. Hence, Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013 & Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 are allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.61/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and CC No.62/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam against the petitioners are quashed. ## **SD/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 15 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2044/2013** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE P1** **ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.62/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.** ## **ANNEXURE P2** **ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA ANNUAL ISSUE OF 2009.** ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD.1.8.2019 RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL cms /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Crl.M.C.Nos.2044 of 2013 &1549 of 2016 16 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1549/2016** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE 1; TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT IN C.C. NO 61/11 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DT. 3/8/10** **ANNEXURE P2** **ANNEXURE 2; TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT IN C.C 62/11 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM** **ANNEXURE P3** **ANNEXURE 3; TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER CRL. M.C. NO. 2044/13 DT. 10/1/14** **ANNEXURE P4** **ANNEXURE 4; TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF COMPLAINANT IN C.C. NO. 61/11** RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL cms /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE