High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-28Partially allowed; summons set aside; remanded ...

Manujamythri v. State of Kerala & De facto complainant

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C 7466 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas J
Judgment Date: 2024-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C is allowed to the extent that the summons issued by the Magistrate are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagappally, for fresh consideration with a proper Section 202(1) inquiry and a duly reasoned order reflecting application of mind, to pass appropriate orders on or before 25.03.2024.
Final Disposition: Partially allowed; summons set aside; remanded for fresh cognizance and 202(1) inquiry with direction to pass orders by 25.03.2024; Cr.M.C. allowed to that extent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manujamythri

Respondents

De facto complainant (T.K. Ajan)
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Akhash S.
• Girishkumar M.S.
• V. S. Varalekshmi
• Neethus

Counsels for Respondents

• T.K. Ajan
• Sri Vipin Narayanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.7466 of 2022) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner-accused, a journalist, challenges the cognizance and summons issued in ST No.200/2022 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, in a private defamation case under Section 500 IPC. The complainant, De facto respondent, alleges defamation arising from a YouTube video titled Kolambi about Amritanandamayi and related deaths at the Amritanandamayi Ashram, allegedly based on various books and publications. The petitioner submits that the video relies on public sources and does not establish a prima facie defamation; furthermore, she contends that the complaint process, including Section 202(1) inquiry, was conducted improperly since she resides beyond the jurisdictional limits of the Magistrate (Karunagappally). The Public Prosecutor urges that, given the accused’s residence outside the jurisdiction, the 202 inquiry is mandatory. The High Court examines the Magistrate’s order, highlighting that the single-line cognizance order stating only “prima facie case under Section 500 IPC” lacks indication of the Magistrate’s mindful consideration of the material and witnesses. Relying on Mehmood Ul Rehman and Abhijit Pawar, the Court stresses the need for an applied mind and a reasoned process. It quashes the summons, remands the matter for fresh consideration by the Magistrate after proper Section 202(1) inquiry and directs passings orders by 25.03.2024, while allowing the Crl.M.C to the extent stated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 500 IPCSection 202(1) Cr.P.CSection 190(1)(a) Cr.P.CSection 204 Cr.P.CSection 203 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Application of mind before taking cognizance (requirement that Magistrate must apply mind to the facts and statements)
Criminal proceedings should not be a weapon of harassment; process should not be used to harass an accused

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the defamation complaint under Section 500 IPC lacks a prima facie case against her since the YouTube video is based on public sources and does not present new defamatory imputations. The 202(1) inquiry was conducted outside the jurisdiction, and the Magistrate’s cognizance order is a one-line assertion of a prima facie case with no indication of application of mind. Therefore, the proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of process and harassment, and the matter remanded for proper scrutiny with due regard to the jurisdictional limits.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that, because the accused resides outside the jurisdiction, the 202(1) inquiry is mandatory, and the Magistrate correctly examined the complainant and witnesses, concluded a prima facie case under Section 500 IPC, and issued process. They argue that quashing is unwarranted as the case requires consideration under Cr.P.C procedures and cognizance rules.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others	2015 KHC 2763	Positive	Cited to emphasize that the Magistrate’s order under S.190(1)(a) CrPC followed by S.204 CrPC must reflect the Magistrate’s application of mind to the facts and statements.
Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another	2017 KHC 6029	Positive	Cited for the proposition that before issuing summons under S.204 CrPC, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the offence is made out after reviewing the complaint and witnesses; the steps must reflect mind.

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 Manujamythri v. State of Kerala & De facto complainant 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7466 OF 2022`** ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 200/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE - OF FIRST CLASS I, KARUNAGAPPALLY PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MANUJAMYTHRI AGED28YEARS W/O.SINTOTHOMAS,'KOIKKARAHOUSE, PINDIMANA,MATHAMKUZHYPO, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM,PIN-686691. ``` ``` BYADVS. AKASHS. GIRISHKUMARMS V.S.VARALEKSHMI NEETHUS. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** ``` 1ADV.T.K.AJAN FLATNO.AJ804,MATAAMRITANANDAMAYI MUTT,AMRITAPURI,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,PIN-690546. ``` ## **`2 STATE OF KERALA`** ``` REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031 ``` ``` R1BYADV.T.K.AJAN(Party-In-Person) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYANAN,SENIORPUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 28.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 2 **C.R** ## **O R D E R** This petition is at the instance of the accused in ST No.200 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagapally, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings in that case. 2. According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent filed a private complaint against her alleging an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC, making false and untenable allegations of defamation. The petitioner is an award winning journalist. She posted a video in her YouTube Channel by name ‘Kolambi’ about Amritanandamayi and about the mysterious deaths occurred in her Ashram. That video was based on various books and publications by different authors, and she did not add anything more, on her own. She would say that, the allegations in the complaint or the statement of witnesses in the enquiry were not sufficient to bring home an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC against her. The 1[st] respondent failed to show a prima facie case as to how he was defamed by that YouTube video posted by her. So, her prayer is to quash the proceedings in ST No.200 of 2022. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and also the 1[st] respondent/complainant who appeared Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 3 as a party in person. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the accused was residing at a place beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate was exercising his jurisdiction, an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C was mandatory. The petitioner/accused was staying at Kothamangalam outside the jurisdictional limits of JFCM-I, Karunagapally. 5. On going through the proceedings in CMP No.2950 of 2020, it could be seen that the complaint was presented before the Magistrate Court on 30.12.2020 and on that day, complainant or his witnesses were not examined and no cognizance was taken. So, the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process, for conducting 202 enquiry. On 25.11.2021, complainant and two witnesses were present and enquiry was conducted. On 22.02.2022, another witness was present and enquiry was completed and the CMP was posted for hearing to 19.03.2022. So, obviously, enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C was conducted by the learned Magistrate himself, without directing an investigation by a police officer or by such other person. 6. After hearing, learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused as per proceedings dated 19.03.2022, which reads as follows: Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 4 “Complainant present, heard. I am satisfied that there are prima facie case under Section 500 IPC. Case taken on file as ST 200/22. Issue summons by registered post”. 7. True that a detailed order is not warranted while taking cognizance and issuing summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. But the proceedings must show that, learned Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, to find that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 8. In **Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others** [2015 KHC 2763], the Apex Court observed that, the steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C followed by Section 204 of Cr.P.C should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements. ## 9. Paragraph 23 of that judgment reads thus: “23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under S.190(1)(a) of CrPC followed by S.204 of CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the Court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the Court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 5 stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under S.203 of CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under S.202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the Criminal Court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under S.204 of CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under S.190/204 of CrPC, the High Court under S.482 of CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court. To be called to appear before Criminal Court as an accused - is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of Criminal Court shall not be made a weapon of harassment”. ## 10. In **Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar** **and another [2017 KHC 6029]** , the Apex Court held that, before issuing summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C, Magistrate has to satisfy that an offence has been made out against the accused after reading the complaint, verifying the statement given by the complainant and his witnesses and on perusing the documents etc., and the steps taken by the Magistrate to issue summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and statements. Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 6 11. In the case on hand, the accused was staying outside the jurisdictional limits of the Magistrate. So, he should have been all the more careful in analysing the facts and statements of the complainant and his witnesses. Learned Magistrate ought to have verified whether the YouTube video posted by the petitioner contained any defamatory imputations against the complainant, or it affected the reputation of the 1[st] respondent in any manner, after analysing the statement given by the complainant and his witnesses. 12. Learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused in a one line order stating that, he was satisfied that there are prima facie case under Section 500 IPC. That order will not show that, how the learned Magistrate arrived at that satisfaction. There is no mention about the statements given by the complainant and his witnesses to show that, the learned Magistrate went through the statements and satisfied himself with the offence alleged, so as to issue summons to the accused. How the learned Magistrate arrived at that satisfaction should reflect in the order taking cognizance so that a person who come across that order also must get the satisfaction, that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and statements recorded during the enquiry. 13. Taking cognizance and issuing summons to a person as Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 7 accused in a criminal case is a serious matter affecting his dignity, self respect and image in the society. So, criminal courts have to be careful while taking cognizance and issuing summons to an accused, as we often see criminal proceedings are being resorted to as a weapon of harassment or retaliation. 14. Since no sufficient indication is there in the order issuing summons to the accused, to show that, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constituted an offence, when considered along with the statements recorded, it cannot be said that, the learned Magistrate applied his mind before issuing summons to the accused. In the result, the proceedings of the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused, is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration, as stated in paragraph 11 of this order, to pass appropriate orders on or before 25.03.2024, after applying his mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Section 202(1) enquiry. The Crl.M.C stands allowed to the extent as above. Sd/- ## **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** smp Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7466/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |**`Annexure I`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DE-FACTO`**| |---|---| ||**`COMPLAINANT`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`JUDICIAL`** **`FIRST-CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE COURT - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY, IN CMP NO.`**| ||**`2950/2020, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME NUMBERED AS`**| ||**`ST NO.200/2022.`**| |**`Annexure II`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE YOUTUBE PAGE`**| ||**`OF THE VIDEO UPLOADED ON 29.09.2020, ALONG WITH`**| ||**`THE DESCRIPTION.`**| |**`Annexure III`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`RELEVANT`** **`PAGES`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`THIRD`**| ||**`EDITION`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`BOOK,`** അ�താന�മയിദിവ�അവതാരേമാ**`?'`**| ||**`(MATA`** **`AMRITANANDAMAYI`** **`A`** **`DIVINE`** **`INCARNATION?)`**| ||**`WRITTEN`** **`BY`** **`M.T`** **`RISHIKUMAR`** **`AND`** **`PUBLISHED`** **`BY`**| ||**`MYTHRI BOOKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`**| |**`Annexure IV`**|**`THE`** **`CERTIFIED`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`PROCEEDINGS SHEET IN`**| ||**`CMP`** **`No.2950/2020,`** **`WHICH`** **`WAS`** **`SUBSEQUENTLY`**| ||**`RENUMBERED`** **`IN`** **`THE`** **`FILES`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`JUDICIAL`** **`FIRST`**| ||**`CLASS`** **`MAGISTRATE`** **`COURT-I,`** **`KARUNAGAPPALLY,`** **`ST`**| ||**`No.200/2022`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit R1(a)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Death`** **`Certificate`** **`of`**| ||**`Sri.Dhurandar`** **`dated`** **`15/06/1997`** **`issued`** **`by`** **`the`**| ||**`Registrar`** **`of`** **`Births`** **`and`** **`Death,`** **`Kollam`**| ||**`Municipality dated 18/08/1997`**| |**`Exhibit R1(b)`**|**`The true copy of the Sale Deed No:196/1997 dated`**| ||**`15/01/1997 of Eravipuram Sub Registry`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(c)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Letter`** **`dated`** **`28/06/1997`**| ||**`issued`** **`by Justice V.Bhaskaran Nambiar (Retired)`**| ||**`to Sri.Krishnan Nambiar`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(d)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Letter`** **`dated`** **`30/07/1997`**| ||**`issued`** **`by Justice V.Bhaskaran Nambiar (Retired)`**| ||**`to the Swamin`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(e)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Letter`** **`dated`** **`01/10/1997`**| ||**`issued`** **`by Justice V.Bhaskaran Nambiar (Retired)`**| ||**`to Smt.Hyma`**| Crl.M.C No.7466 of 2022 9 |**`Exhibit-R1(f)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Letter`** **`dated`** **`23/02/1998`**| |---|---| ||**`issued by Justice V.Bhaskaran Nambiar (Retired)`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(g)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Letter`** **`dated`** **`23/03/1998`**| ||**`issued`** **`by Justice V.Bhaskaran Nambiar (Retired)`**| ||**`to`** **`document`** **`writer`** **`Raju`** **`Pillai`** **`referring`** **`the`**| ||**`name of this Respondent in it.`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(h)`**|**`The`** **`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Encumbrance`** **`Certificate`**| ||**`dated`** **`29/07/2008`** **`of`** **`the`** **`property`** **`of`** **`deceased`**| ||**`Sri.Dhurandar.`**| |**`Exhibit-R1(i)`**|**`The true copy of the corrected news published in`**| ||**`Deshabhimani Daily dated 06/08/1997`**| |**`Exhibit R1(j)`**|**`true`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`relevant`** **`column`** **`of`** **`the`** **`News`**| ||**`item`** **`published`** **`in`** **`the`** **`Desabhimani`** **`Daily`** **`dated`**| ||**`24/09/2002`**| |**`Exhibit R1(K)`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`SWORN`** **`STATEMENT`** **`OF`** **`THE`**| ||**`COMPLAINANT ADV T.K AJAN IN CMP NO. 2950/2020 OF`**| ||**`ST NO. 200/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE`** **`COURT`** **`KARUNAGAPPALLY`** **`ALONG`** **`WITH`**| ||**`READABLE TYPED COPY`**| |**`Exhibit R1(L)`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS`**| ||**`UNNI`** **`IN`** **`CMP`** **`NO.`** **`2950/2020`** **`OF`** **`ST`** **`NO.`** **`200/2Q22`**| ||**`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT`**| ||**`KARUNAGAPALLY ALONG WITH READABLE TYPED COPY`**| |**`Exhibit R1(M)`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS`**| ||**`VIKRAMAN IN CMP NO. 2950/2020 OF ST NO. 200/2022`**| ||**`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT`**| ||**`KARUNAGAPALLY ALONG WITH READABLE TYPED COPY`**| |**`Exhibit R1(N)`**|**`THE`** **`TRUE`** **`COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS`**| ||**`PADMAKUMAR`** **`IN`** **`CMP`** **`NO.2950/2020`** **`OF`** **`ST`** **`NO.`**| ||**`200/2022`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`JUDICIAL`** **`FIRST`** **`CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE`** **`COURT`** **`KARUNAGAPALLY.`** **`ALONG`** **`WITH`**| ||**`READABLE TYPED COPY`**| ||True Copy| P.S to Judge smp