M.V.Nikesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7363 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7363 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

M.V.Nikesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 634/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                  OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

      1      M.V.NIKESH KUMAR
             S/O LATE M.V. RAGHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
             MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EDITOR,
             REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY,
             ERNAKULAM 683 503.

      2      ANEESH BURFOM
             AGED 48 YEARS, EDITOR,
             REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY,
             ERNAKULAM 683 503.

      3      REPORTER CHANNEL,
             KALAMASSERY, HMT COLONY, ERNAKULAM,
             REPRESENTED BY M.V. NIKESH KUMAR,
             MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EDITOR,
             REPORTER CHANNEL, KALAMASSERY,
             ERNAKULAM 683 503.

             BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2      SANTHOSH KUMAR
             S/O SAMI VENCHERIMEETHAL,
             AGED 47 YEARS, THAYYULATHIL HOUSE,CHEVAYUR P.O,
             CALICUT 673 571, REPRESENTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
             R. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O P.M. MUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS,
             FLAT NO 6F, P.V.S. NAVARATHNA, P.M. KUTTY ROAD,
             CALICUT 673 006.

             R1 BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

                                      2




                                    ORDER

Regarding a complaint submitted by the

labourers of a firm in Riyad alleging

malpractices and non-payment of wages and

salary before the Embassy was telecasted by

a television channel, against which, the

defacto complainant came up with a compliant

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class

III, Kozhikode, over which cognizance was

taken for the offence under Section 500 IPC.

Persons were recruited by an agency

functioning in Dubai and the complainant is

the Sales Executive. Prosecution was

initiated through a Power of Attorney holder

of complainant. Allegations are against the

recruitment of various persons to the said

firm and non-payment of wages, salary etc.,

for which some of the labourers lodged a

complaint before the Embassy. The defacto Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

complainant did not have any case of personal

grievance apart from the recruitment company

at Dubai and the firm at Riyad. It is not

clear under what capacity the Sales Executive

maintained an action under Section 500 IPC

against the accused - the Chief Editor, Editor

and the television channel ( accused No.1 to

3) without having any personal grievance. The

firm in Riyad against whom the complaint was

filed or the recruitment agency in Dubai did

not come up with any complaint. It is a Sales

Executive attached with the recruitment agency

through a power holder came up without showing

any personal grievance. He cannot maintain an

action under Section 500 IPC simply because of

the reason that he is a staff working in the

firm, against whom the news item was

telecasted.

2. Even otherwise, the news item published

will not constitute the offence under Section Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

500 IPC. This Court had the occasion to

consider the said question in Leela Menon and

Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2020

KHC 834 = 2020 (6) KHC SN 6 = 2020(2) KLD

818). The relevant portion of paragraph 5 of

the said judgment is extracted below:

"it is the solemn duty of the fourth estate to publish all news materials, especially having public importance and it is their further duty to comment on the news material with its pros and cons so as to enlighten the society to remain vigilant on the matters of public importance. It would squarely come under the first exception attached to S.499 IPC, when it is done with bonafides for the public interest. The fourth estate being one of the rostrums to address and comment on each and every matters governing public interest/ public importance in a democratic society, the news item published with necessary comments, though sometimes contemptuous, may not itself amount to Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

a defamation as defined under S.499 IPC, unless the same is lacking in good faith and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The first proviso to S.499 IPC has got a wide canvass in a democratic system and right to publish a news item with its necessary comments and views though sometimes contemptuous, cannot be defeated unless malafides writ large on its face and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The contemptuous nature of news item if it is connected with imputation of truth which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence."

3. In the instant case, the news item was

telecasted taking into account the public

interest involved in the matter so as to

enlighten the society especially the

unemployed youth, who are aspirant of an

employment abroad. Hence, the cognizance

taken and its further proceedings in C.C.No. Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)

634/2015 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class

III, Kozhikode are hereby quashed.

The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV Crl.MC.No.4355 OF 2016(D)