T.V. Surendran & Ajitha T.K. v. State of Kerala & Shivaprasad Shenoy

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. No.419/12 is dismissed; the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not invoked to quash the complaint. The petitioners are at liberty to defend before the trial court, where evidence will determine whether defamation occurred and whether any privilege applies.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not invoked; trial to proceed with defense.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. V. Surendran
Ajitha T. K.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Shivaprasad Shenoy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. V. Jayakumar Namboodiri

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. Jithesh R.
• Sri. R. Ramadas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by T.V. Surendran (editor) and Ajitha T.K. (printer-publisher) of the Sudheepam daily, Payyanur, seeking to quash a defamation complaint (S.T.C.1114/2011) registered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyanur. The second respondent, Shivaprasad Shenoy, alleged that on 16 July 2009 the petitioners published a defamatory editorial that harmed his reputation and was not in good faith. The petitioners contended the complaint is an abuse of process, and that the publication was in the public interest, made in good faith, and protected by press privilege. The High Court reiterated that the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only for purposes permitted by the statute: to give effect to orders, to prevent abuse of the process, or to secure ends of justice. Citing Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, the court emphasized that such powers are not to be invoked lightly and should be used only when a prima facie case justifies it. On the facts, the court found that a prima facie case to quash did not arise; therefore the petition was dismissed, with liberty for the petitioners to defend the matter at trial under law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly and with caution (Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh).
Quashing of proceedings where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal).
Power to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the complaint is baseless and not made with a cognizable criminal offense in view of publication in good faith and for public interest. They contended the alleged defamation did not directly target the second respondent, and that the trial would require scrutiny of the imputation and any privilege in press reporting. They urged that Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used only to prevent abuse of process and when prima facie case demands, not to displace the trial or substitute evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the 16 July 2009 editorial defamed Shivaprasad Shenoy, justifying the maintenance of the complaint before the trial court. They urged the court to allow the matter to proceed to examine the defamatory imputations and the applicability of any privilege, noting that the petition seeks to nullify a valid defamation complaint prior to trial.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh	(2008) 8 SCC 781	Positive	Cited to emphasize that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only when justified by the statutory test.
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal	1992 SCC (Crl) 426	Positive	Cited for the principle that quashing is warranted where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, guiding the threshold test for invoking inherent power.

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** **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 419 of 2012 ()** ## **-------------------------STC.NO. 1114/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANUR ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. T.V. SURENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, EDITOR, ''SUDEEPAM'' DAILY, PERUMBA, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. AJITHA.T.K.,W/O.SURENDRAN, PRINTER & PUBLISHER, ''SUDEEPAM'' DAILY, PERUMBA, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.V. JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** ## **2. SHIVAPRASAD SHENOY,** **S/O.LATE SURENDRA SHENOY, AGED 47 YEARS, SRI.SADH SAI BABA STORES,PAYYANUR-P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670 307.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JITHESH.R. R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **CRMC.NO.419/2012** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE-1. CERTIFIED COPYOF THE COMPLAINT NO.S.T.C.1114/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANUR.** **ANNEXURE-II. PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS DATED 16.07.2009.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.419 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I complaint in S.T.C.1114/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur by invoking the inherent power. The petitioners are Editor and printer and publisher of a news paper namely 'Sudheepam' at Payyannur, which was started in the year 2005 and impartially reporting and exploring the causes of common people and published various grievances of the public and tried to redress them. Therefore, they have got good subscribers and reputation in the Kannur District, irrespective of politics and community. The 2[nd] respondent preferred the above complaint including false allegation, which will not stand in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court to quash the Crl.M.C.No.419/12 2 above proceedings on the ground that no ingredients will attract to the alleged offence and if it is tried in a Court of law, it is mere abuse of process of the Court. 2. The allegation of the 2[nd] respondent in the trial Court was that on 16.7.2009, the petitioners published a defamatory statement in their editorial page in 'Sudheepam' daily intending to harm reputation of the 2[nd] respondent. The imputation was with the intention to defame the 2[nd] respondent without any bona fides. In the circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent preferred a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court with this Crl.M.C. 3. 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. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the code. Therefore it means Crl.M.C.No.419/12 3 that if the matter in question is not covered by any provision of the code, it comes into operation, 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 _**Monica Kumar**_ v. _**State of Uttar Pradesh**_ [(2008) 8 SCC 781] held that the inherent power contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself. In the _**State of Haryana**_ V. _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] the Supreme Court pointed out that: _“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”._ 4. In this case, the petitioners made publication of certain news in their newspapers, which according to the Crl.M.C.No.419/12 4 2[nd] respondent, is defamatory. The petitioners contended that they made publication in good faith for the benefit of the public. They also contended that no imputation was made directly affect the 2[nd] respondent. If that be the position, it is the duty of the trial Court to consider whether the imputation made by the petitioners amounts to any defamatory statement and it will affect the reputation of the 2[nd] respondent as alleged. If the petitioners are acting in good faith, imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published is to be analysed by the trial court. It is true that if the publication is made for the public good, that it is not a defamation, according to the _First Exception._ Therefore, consideration of the evidence is necessary to conclude whether the publication amounts to defamatory or not and whether the petitioners are entitled to get any privilege in the capacity of a press making publication and good faith. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am 5 Crl.M.C.No.419/12 of the view that for the purpose of quashing a complaint prima facie case is the litmus test. It is not necessary to scrutinize the allegation for the purpose of deciding whether such allegation will be upheld during trial. If any action is taken at the threshold for quashing the complaint before evidence, it is necessary to consider that on the face of the allegation no criminal offence was constituted. Therefore, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C and it is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take their defence in support of their contentions before the trial Court. If such contentions are taken in the trial Court, the trial Court shall consider those aspects and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.419/12 6 Crl.M.C.No.419/12 7