Shani Prabhakar and Romi Mathew v. Adv. T. Radha and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: Annexures-A and I are hereby quashed and the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexures A and I quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shani Prabhakar
Romi Mathew

Respondents

Adv. T. Radha
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Senior Advocate SMT. Sumathy Dandapani
• Adv. Sri. Millu Dandapani

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. Vincent Joseph
• Sri. C.K. Sajeev
• Public Prosecutor Sri. Reji Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court decision, rendered by Justice P. D. Rajan, concerns a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Shani Prabhakar and Romi Mathew, accused 4 and 5, challenging Annexure-I of CMP No. 3512/2011 in ST No. 324/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, for offences punishable under Section 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The first respondent, a practicing lawyer, had filed a defamation complaint based on a news broadcast by MM TV alleging defamatory remarks against her, while the state stood as respondent. Petitioners contended they were merely news readers for a media channel and that the publication was bona fide and in public interest; further, they argued that much of the dispute with the complainant had already been settled (as evidenced by Annexures G, H, etc.), and continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The respondents argued that defamation requires proper process and that the earlier quashing against some co-accused did not negate the present proceedings. The court emphasized the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice, noting that the dispute had been settled between the complainant and the first accused, thereby supporting quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. Relying on Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others, the court held that after cognizance, the magistrate cannot review the order, while recognizing the press privilege under the Print and Registration of Books Act. Consequently, Annexures A and I were quashed, and the Crl.M.C. was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 499 IPC (First Exception)Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Section 7

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice
Abuse of process of the court
Bona fide publication defense under Section 499 IPC, First Exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners, as news readers of MM TV, asserted they published bona fide news in the public interest and that the original dispute with the complainant had been settled. They argued that continuing prosecution post-settlement would amount to abuse of process and that Section 499 IPC (First Exception) provides protection for truthful publications for public good; after cognizance, the Magistrate cannot review the order, a principle they align with Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal. They contended that the press privilege under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act supports their position.

Contentions of Respondents

The complainant-counter petitioner contended that defamation proceedings were warranted given the alleged defamatory broadcasts and that none of the prior settlements should bar the current prosecution; the State supported maintaining the proceedings to vindicate the complainant’s reputation and the lawfulness of the defamation action.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Adalath Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others	2004 Crl.L.J. 4874	Positive	The court relied on this Supreme Court principle to hold that after cognizance, a Magistrate cannot review the order; the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 108 of 2012 ()** ## **-------------------------CMP NO. 3512/2011 IN ST.NO. 324/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II, MAVELIKKARA** **------------------** **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 4 & 5 :** **------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SHANI PRABHAKAR** **NEWS READER, MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD. NEAR AROOR TOLL GATE, NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR P.O. ALAPPUZHA-688534.** ## **2. ROMI MATHEW** **REPORTER, MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD., NEAR AROOR TOLL GATE, NH BYPASS ROAD AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688534.** **BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS - COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ADV. T. RADHA** **AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN, SACHU HOUSE KOMALLOOR, CHANAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA 690101 ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** ## **R1 BY ADVS. SRI. VINCENT JOSEPH SRI.C.K. SAJEEV** **R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 108 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **------------------------------------------ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT IN ST.NO. 324 OF 2009 (CMP.NO. 1010/2009) ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA, FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 6-5-2008 IN CC 96/2006 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE C: PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION NO. 67 OF 2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE KERALA BAR COUNCIL. ANNEXURE D: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23-6-2008 RENDERED BY CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE E: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO DATED 10-1-2009 FILED IN CP.NO. 67 OF 2006 BEFORE KERALA BAR COUNCIL, REFERRED TO IN THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE. ANNEXURE F: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO DATED 3-10-2008 FILED IN OP.NO. 96 OF 2006 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES' REDRESSAL FORUM ALAPPUZHA, REFERRED TO IN THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE. ANNEXURE G: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 17-6-2010 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC.NO. 4171 OF 2009. ANNEXURE H: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 21-6-2011 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC.NO. 1831 OF 2011. ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-11-2011 IN CMP.NO. 3512 OF 2011 IN ST.NO. 324 OF 2009 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, MAVELIKKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.108 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2014 ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I order in C.M.P.No.3512/2011 in S.T.No.324/2009 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara for offence punishable u/s.500 of IPC r/w.34 IPC. Annexure-A is the complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent in this case. Petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in the complaint. Proceedings against accused 1 and 2 were quashed by this Court by virtue of Annexure-G order. The petitioners contended that they are only news readers of MMTV limited, Alappuzha. Further trial of petitioners and other accused in the above case is a mere abuse of the process of Court. 2. The 1[st] respondent, who is a practising lawyer, is 2 Crl.M.C.No.108/12 the defacto complainant in Annexure-A complaint pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara. She filed the complaint against 5 persons alleging that a news item was telecasted on 16.6.2008 at 2 p.m., 7 p.m. and on 17.6.2008 at 8.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. in MM TV, which is defamatory to the 1[st] respondent. The news will affect her general reputation as a Lawyer. But, the petitioners contended that the 1[st] respondent settled the matter with the 1[st] accused in Annexure-A complaint. Subsequently, by virtue of Annexure-G order, the allegation against 1[st] and 2[nd] accused was quashed by this Court. After that, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners and accused No.3 approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.1831/2011, which was closed by clarifying the petitioners' liberty to settle the dispute with the 1[st] respondent and move appropriate application to quash the proceedings against them. Crl.M.C.No.108/12 3 Thereafter, the petitioners filed the above C.M.P. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C, after passing Annexure-G order. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C. the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself. Here, the allegation is that the 1[st] accused in this case obtained Annexure-B order from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha. Against that order, the 1[st] respondent approached Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacad and obtained Annexure-D judgment, in which the District Consumer Forum was directed to Crl.M.C.No.108/12 4 dispose the matter after hearing the 1[st] respondent. In the meantime, the 1[st] accused approached Kerala Bar Council with Annexure-C petition against the 1[st] respondent, which was settled by Annexure-E memo and the case pending before District Forum was also settled by Annexure-F memo. Annexures-E and F are the memos filed by the 1[st] accused and the 1[st] respondent by settling the disputes between them. Based upon that, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached this Court and filed Crl.M.C.No.4171/2008 and this Court quashed the complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 by virtue of Annexure-G order. Against that, the petitioners approached this Court and obtained Annexure-H order and as per the direction in that order, the learned Magistrate passed Annexure-I order. 4. Analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the dispute between the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] accused was settled. When the original complaint was settled between them, nothing Crl.M.C.No.108/12 5 survives in this petition. The petitioners contended that they have published only a bona fide news, which discloses the truth for the benefit of the public. 5. In Section 499 IPC, First Exception says that, 'Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. That imputation should be made or published is a question of fact. The petitioners are entitled to get that benefit. In Annexure-I order, relying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in _**Adalath Prasad**_ v. _**Rooplal Jindal and others**_ [2004 Crl.L.J.4874], the learned Magistrate observed that after taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review the order and the remedy available to the accused was to invoke Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate, which will not affect Crl.M.C.No.108/12 6 the jurisdiction of this Court to invoke 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. In such circumstances, since the dispute between the original accused and the 1[st] respondent was settled earlier, it is not fair to continue the proceedings against the press. They are entitled to get the privilege of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Hence, invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C., Annexures-A and I are hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.108/12 7 Crl.M.C.No.108/12 8