High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-03-14Petition dismissed; no quashing; liberty to def...

Preetha C. Chandrakkantham v. State of Kerala and Binoy

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1997 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is dismissed. The High Court did not quash the complaint but held that the petitioner may defend at trial. Observations in this order will not affect the trial.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; no quashing; liberty to defend at trial.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Preetha C. Chandrakkantham, Paddavadu, Karunagappally, Kollam

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Binoy, S/o Bahuleyan, Vijayapuram Veedu, Karimthottuva Muri, Sasthamcotta Village, Kunnathur Taluk, Kollam-690521

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Karthikeyan Panicker
• Smt. Daya K. Panicker

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Githesh R.
• Sri B. Mohanlal
• Sri T. Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Preetha C. Chandrakkantham, an agricultural officer at Krishi Bhavan Sasthamcotta, seeking to quash Annexure-A1, the complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Sasthamcotta in CC No.251/2011 under section 500 IPC for defamation. The complaint arises from a prior, in good faith, complaint made by the petitioner before the Kerala Women’s Commission against the 2nd respondent, Binoy. Annexure-A1 alleges defamatory statements published by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that since she is a government servant, she is entitled to the protections of Exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 IPC, and that continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process and is in the public interest to bring the matter to a court’s attention; she asserts she acted with lawful authority and in good faith. The respondents contend that the publication is defamatory per se and that a prima facie case exists, hence the High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash at this stage. Relying on Madhu Limaye and Pratibha Rani, the High Court reiterates that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse and to secure ends of justice, and not to re-evaluate evidence at the initial stage. It finds a prima facie case and denies quashing. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, though the petitioner may raise all defenses at trial. Observations are not to affect the trial’s course.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 499 IPCExceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPCSection 500 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.
Abuse of process of court
Ends of justice
Per se defamatory publication
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj (AIR 1985 SC 370)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that as a government servant she is entitled to the benefit of Exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 IPC. She filed the complaint before the Kerala Women’s Commission in good faith, with lawful authority, to protect public interest. She argues the action was in good faith and for the public good, and that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the publication is defamatory per se and has prima facie material to sustain a defamation case. They submit that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked at the initial stage to quash a complaint when a prima facie case exists.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra	(1977) 4 SCC 551	Positive	Cited for the principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse and to secure ends of justice.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj	AIR 1985 (2) SC 370	Positive	Cited for the principle that the High Court should proceed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint at the quashing stage and not reweigh evidence.

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 Preetha C. Chandrakkantham v. State of Kerala and Binoy 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 MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1997 of 2012** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 251/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA** ## **-----------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **---------------------** **PREETHA.C. CHANDRAKANTHAM, PADA VADAKKU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **-----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** ## **2. BINOY, S/O.BAHULEYAN,** **VIJAYAPURAM VEEDU, KARIMTHOTTUVA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM-690521.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH. R. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.T.PRASAD** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1997 of 2012** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES -----------------------------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/4/2010 OF THE**| |---|---| ||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,**| ||**SASTHAMCOTTA.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 11/10/2011.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/3/2012 ISSUED BY**| ||**KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WOMEN'S**| ||**COMMISSION DATED 29/11/2009.**| **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE ----------------------------------------NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1997 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A1 complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta as C.C.No.251/2011 for offence u/s.500 IPC, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner is an Agricultural Officer of Krishi Bhavan, Sasthamcotta. The allegation against the petitioner is that while she was working in the above office, she preferred a complaint against the 2[nd] respondent before the Women's Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and the statements mentioned in the above petition were defamatory. In the circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent filed Annexure-A1 complaint. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A1 on the ground that she is entitled to get the benefit of Exception 8 Crl.M.C.No.1977/12 2 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. According to the petitioner, if the above complaint is proceeded and prosecuted, it will amount to mere abuse of process of Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that she is a Government servant and entitled to get the benefit of Exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. She made a complaint before the Women's Commission in good faith against the 2[nd] respondent and she has lawful authority to make such accusation over him. Moreover, she made such imputation in the petition filed before the Women's Commission in good faith for protection of the interest of the person making it for the public good. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that the publication is per se defamatory, which affected his reputation. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted Crl.M.C.No.1977/12 3 that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. In such a situation, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked at this stage. 6. The inherent powers of the High Court contemplated u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only for the three purposes mentioned in the Section, i.e., to make such 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 _**Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra**_ [(1977) 4 SCC 551] held as follows: “The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions: (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted n any other provision of the Code.” ## From the aforesaid legal principle, it is found that when Crl.M.C.No.1977/12 4 prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, the scope of invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 is limited. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the allegation against the petitioner is that certain imputation made by the petitioner had affected the reputation of the 1[st] respondent, which, according to the 1[st] respondent, is per se defamatory. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence u/s.500 IPC. When prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere to analyse the evidence as to whether any sufficient materials are produced for conviction or not, which is the duty of the trial court. Apex Court in **Pratibha Rani V. Suraj** (AIR 1985 (2) ## SC 370), this court observed as follows. “It is well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It Crl.M.C.No.1977/12 5 has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations” Therefore,there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all defence in the trial Court in support of her contentions. The observations made in this order will not affect the case of the petitioner in the trial Court. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1977/12 6