Kerala High Court
P.V.Rajeevan vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025
1
2025:KER:48637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 45079 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
GEORGE ROY
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O K.K JOHN, 5 D1, MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENT,
PALARIVATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SHRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SHRI.RISHI VARMA T.R.
SHRI.RITHIK S.ANAND
SMT.SREELAKSHMI MENON P.
SHRI.SREEJITH A.
SRI.V.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, A WING, SHASTRI
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE KERALA STATE
LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 CYRIAC THOMAS
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025
2
2025:KER:48637
PENTHOUSE MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENTS,
PALARIVATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
4 P V RAJEEVAN
10 D1 MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENT, PALARIVATTOM
POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI.C.S. HRITHWICK, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.680/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025
3
2025:KER:48637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 680 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.489 OF 2019
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
P.V.RAJEEVAN,
AGED 51 YEARS
10 D1, MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENT, PALARIVATTOM
POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SHRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SMT.N.K.SHEEBA
SHRI.RISHI VARMA T.R.
SHRI.RITHIK S.ANAND
SMT.K.M.TINTU
SMT.SREELAKSHMI MENON P.
SHRI.SREEJITH A.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND 2ND ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CYRIAC THOMAS,
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025
4
2025:KER:48637
PENTHOUSE MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENTS,
PALARIVATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
3 GEORGE ROY,
S/O K.K JOHN, 5 D1 MANJOORAN MOONSTONE APARTMENT,
PALARIVATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
SMT. S.SEETHA, SERNIOR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).45079/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025
5
2025:KER:48637
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.45079 of 2024 and Crl.M.C. No. 680 of 2025
------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT/ORDER These two cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common judgment/order.
2. Petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.489 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam. The above complaint was filed by one Cyriac Thomas alleging offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, no offence is made out.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 6 2025:KER:48637 petitioners. Even though notice is issued to the complainant in these cases, there is no appearance for the complainant.
4. The short point raised by the petitioners is that, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, it will hit by explanation No.4 of Section 499 IPC. The counsel also submitted that there is no defamation even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted because it is published in a close Gmail group and it was not published on a public platform.
5. I think there is force in the argument of the petitioners. The allegations in the complaint are mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 to 15 of the complaint. The same is extracted hereunder:
"6. In the mean time the accused and a few others have colluded with the builders who have suffered the above orders to promote an association under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific And Charitable Societies Act, with the name "Moonstone Apartment Owners Association". It is to be noted that The action of forming an association under the Travancore Cochin Act, was a steep deviation from the earlier position to promote W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 7 2025:KER:48637 an association under the Kerala Apartment Ownership Act.
7. The Complainant has approached the District Court Emakulam (Vacation Court) in IA NO. 1812/17 seeking an Injunction restraining the respondents and others including Moonstone Apartment Association from preventing him from using common area facilities attached to his apartment including use of lift, staircase and other common facilities and two covered car parking until further orders.
8. The respondents are aggrieved by the interim order of injunction passed against them and others. In the back drop of the interim injunction dated 27.04.2017 in IA NO. 1812/17 passed by the District Court Ernakulam, they have written and published emails containing defamatory statements to [email protected]. It is a group mail facility, whereby the email send by the members of the group can be accessed by all the members of the group. The complainant and the respondents are the members of the group. There are 34 other members in the group, going by the mail IDs added to the group. It includes the mail IDs of the owners of the apartments as well as outsiders. All the members of the group are not the members of the association formed by the first accused under the Travancore Cochin Act.
9. The first in the 5th paragraph of the email dated 06 /05/2017 has stated as follows:
"Mr.Cyriac, on whom we had tremendous hope W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 8 2025:KER:48637 to use his expertise & experience for the betterment of the flat owners & guiding us through our legal case against the builders had completely deceived us."
The statement gives an impression to the readers of the email that the complainant had deceived them. It is to be noted that the complainant was one among the aggrieved owners who have taken recourse to legal remedies. The complainant was not entrusted with the obligation to conduct the legal case against the builders, on the other hand it was handled by the accused and two other office bearers of the Association formed under the Travancore Cochin Act. The complainant has never given anyone the hope in the nature mentioned in the imputation. The imputation itself is false and was made with the intention to show the complainant in bad light before unsuspecting members of the email group, who are unaware of the truth of the matter.
1O. The first accused in 5th paragraph, second sentence has stated as follows;
"Instead of helping all flat owners to get justice from the wrong doings of the builders he has fooled all of us by seeking injunction in the hope to enjoy the common areas & facilities at the expense of we gullible 30 flat owners of the Moonstone Apartments."
A reading of the above statement again gives the impression to the members of the group that the complainants have footed them by obtaining an injunction from a competent court. According to the first W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 9 2025:KER:48637 respondent, the complainant has approached the court, with the hope to enjoy the common area & facilities at the expense of the other flat owners. The imputation is incorrect, misleading and is otherwise targeting at the judicial process and the court, and it may even go to the extent of undermining it.
11. The first accused in 6 th paragraph of the email has stated as follows:
"Just to enjoy the common area, facilities, services including common area electricity, security, operational lifts, at the expense of others without paying the maintenance fees Mr. Cyriac has staged soon a contemptible gimmick."
In the above imputation the complainant has described the complainant as having committed a 'contemptible gimmick by filing the case before a competent court. He has repeated the imputation that the complainant has instituted the legal proceedings to enjoy the common area facilities, at the expense of others and without paying maintenance fees. The term contemptible would mean deserving contempt. It may also mean in ordinary parlance as shameful and disgraceful. The term gimmick would mean 'a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something as a plan or deal'. The institution of a litigation cannot at any stretch of imagination be considered a shameful or a trick. However, when the above imputations are read by other members of the group who are placed in various parts of the world would W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 10 2025:KER:48637 get an impression that the complainant is a person with bad character.
12.The first accused in the 7 th paragraph of the email has stated as follows:
"Mr. Cyriac with his malafide intentions, conceit & clandestine act has deceived each one of us."
The first accused would describe the complainant's act of instituting the original petition, as malafide, conceit and clandestine. The term malafide intention would mean ulterior motive, conceit would mean an excessively favourable opinion about once own ability importance or wit etc, and clandestine means '...characterised by, done in or executed with secrecy or concealment especially for purposes of subversion or deception: private or surreptitious. It may be recalled that the first accused has described the complainants action of instituting a civil proceeding is described in such an uncharitable manner so as to demean him and to cause serious loss of reputation in the minds of the persons who read the email.
13. The first accused in the last paragraph has stated as follows;
"As we say charity begins at home, let our charity begin with permitting Mr. Cyriac to enjoy the common facilities, services with the maintenance fund pooled from our hard earned income."
The complainant in this paragraph is described as person who is receiving a charity. The statement is W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 11 2025:KER:48637 sarcastically couched to give an impression that the complainant is a person who lives on the donations of others.
14. The second respondent, in response to the email dated 06/05/2017 of the first accused has send a response email dated 06/05/2017 which is more defamatory, which reads as follows;
"I would like to spend my hard earned money to feed some stray dogs than giving charity to one of our most respected moonstone members."
The second complainant has paraphrased the complainant as equivalent to stray dogs or even worse. The imputation on the very bare reading is abusive and indented to defame the complainant.
15.The above said e-mails were written and published in the mail group '[email protected], whereby the email send by the members of the group can be accessed by all the members of the group. A perusal of the mail group has revealed that other members of the group have read the e-mail. Reading of the emails of the respondents has harmed the reputation of the complainant in the minds of the other owners and users of the email group. Those who read the emails containing imputations had gathered an impression that the complainant has committed cheating on the apartment owners and is a person living in the charity of others. The respondents have acted in furtherance to common intention in causing disrepute to W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 12 2025:KER:48637 the complainant, hence they have committed an offence punishable under Sec.499 and Sec. 500 read with Section 34 IPC. This complaint is filed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to take recourse to civil proceedings for recovery of damages."
6. I fail to understand how the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC are made out in these cases.
Admittedly, it is published in the mail group [email protected]. Certain opinions are given by the accused. Even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are accepted, I think the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC are not made out. Moreover, Explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC is extracted hereunder:
"4. No imputation is said to harm a person' reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 13 2025:KER:48637
7. I am of the considered opinion that Explanation 4 of Section 499 is attracted in this case. No defamation is made out, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted. Therefore, I think the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed.
Therefore, all further proceedings against the petitioners in these cases in C.C. No.489/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 14 2025:KER:48637 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 680/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.
489 OF 2017 DATED 16.05.2017 OF THE JFCM- IX, KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF PW1 ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE EMAIL GROUP W.P.(C) No.45079/2024 & Crl.M.C. No.680/2025 15 2025:KER:48637 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45079/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.
489 OF 2017 DATED 16.05.2017 OF THE JFCM- IX, KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 14/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE JFCM KUNNUMPARAM IN C.C 489/17 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE EMAIL GROUP