T. Asaf Ali vs M. Ashraf
2021 Latest Caselaw 1491 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                      Crl.MC.No.5565 OF 2018

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 723/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
           OF FIRST CLASS, THALASSERY IN KANNUR DISTRICT


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             T. ASAF ALI,
             S/O LATE C.T CHERIYA MOIDU, AGED 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE,
             4C-1-407- MAREENA MAJESTIC APARTMENTS,
             GOSHREE BRIDGE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.SURENDRAN
             KUM S MAYUKHA

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      M. ASHRAF
             S/O MOIDEENKOYA HAJEE, AGE NOT KNOWN, LAILA MANZIL
             PERINGADI, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 673311

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

             R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             R1 BY ADV. T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN

             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.M.R.DHANIL

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.5565 OF 2018                 2




                                     ORDER

A reply notice issued by the accused to his

counter part - one Mammootty was taken up to

maintain a complaint alleging offence under

Section 500 IPC on which cognizance was taken.

The recipient of the said notice circulated the

same among the present and earlier board

members of the school. The person who

circulated and published the same, the

recipient of the reply notice, was not made as

an accused in the case. The content of the

notice was circulated and published by one

Mammootty to whom the notice was issued and

not by the accused. Contemptuous nature of

content of a reply notice alone is not

sufficient to bring out a case under Section

499 IPC, unless the same amounts to publication

causing damage to the reputation. The

ingredient which constitutes Section 499 IPC

thus not attracted. It would be an abuse of

the process of court. Hence quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.723 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT RECORDED ON 24-4-2017 IN C.M.P.NO.411 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT RECORDED ON 29-7-2017 IN C.M.P.NO.411 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT OF ABDUL AZEEZ RECORDED ON 29-7-2017 IN C.M.P.NO.411 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 21-5-2018 IN C.M.P.NO.411 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE - I TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO K.B.MAMOOTTY MASTER

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE