Ayub H.H vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10792 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023/27TH ASWINA, 1945
               CRL.REV.PET NO. 266 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.760/2022 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
             JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER:

         AYUB H.H
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O.LATE HASSAINAR
         PRORIETOR, MILLENIUM MOTOR CARE,
         VELLAKODATHU BUILDING, METRO PILLAR NO 171,
         MUTTOM. RESIDING AT HAJIYARAKATH HOUSE
         POST ERIYAD, MADAVANA,
         KODUNGALLOR, PIN - 683106

         BY ADVS.
         D.FEROZE
         C.J.JIYAS
         T.S.KRISHNENDU
         PREETI S.
RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
         PIN - 682031
         (CMP NO.760/2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
         ERNAKULAM).
    2    VANDANA SHIVADAS
         D/O SHIVADAS, EDAMALKUNNIL HOUSE, AMBALABHAGOM,
         CHIRAKKADAVU CENTER P O, PIN - 686519
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.N.R.SANGEETH RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         PARVATHY VIJAYAN
         S.SIBHA(K/477/2004)
         AMEER SALIM(K/1024/2020)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P. No.266/2023
                                        :2:




                            N. NAGARESH, J.

           `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                         Crl.R.P. No.266 of 2023

           `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023


                                  ORDER

~~~~~~

The petitioner, who is the complainant in CMP

No.760/2022 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ernakulam, is aggrieved by the order dated

19.12.2022 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner states that he filed a private

complaint stating that on 22.02.2022, a defamatory content

has been posted by the 2nd respondent on the Facebook

page named Alias @ Queen on Wheels, which is

defamatory to the petitioner. The defamatory post was made

with the intention to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the

Firm run by the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent has thereby Crl.R.P. No.266/2023

committed the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501

and 502 IPC.

3. The petitioner examined PWs 1 to 4. The Court of

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after going through

the contents of the matter alleged to be defamatory, came to

a conclusion that there is nothing to show that the 2 nd

respondent had published any imputation concerning the

complainant with intention to harm him. The Additional CJM

took note of the judgment of this Court in 2018 KHC 160 and

held that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the

complaint. The complaint was hence dismissed under

Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the

complaint that the revision petitioner is before this Court

invoking Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Section

499 IPC is regarding the harm to the reputation of any

person, which necessarily means that the said provision

deals with individuals. The petitioner and his witnesses had

clearly established the case against the 2 nd respondent. The Crl.R.P. No.266/2023

learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence on record

properly.

5. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that

the 2nd respondent had caused damage to the brand of the

petitioner and his business. The content of the Facebook

post tarnished the reputation of the brand of the complainant

and has adversely affected the sale of the product of the

complainant's Firm.

6. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that

the Magistrate committed an error in relying on the dictum in

2018 KHC 160. The content in the body of Section 499 IPC

is regarding the harm to the reputation of any person, which

necessarily means that the Section deals with individuals.

The reasoning of the Magistrate is unsustainable.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1 st

respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd

respondent. I have also perused the certified copies of the

depositions of PWs 1 to 4 made available by the counsel for Crl.R.P. No.266/2023

the petitioner.

8. The statements of the witnesses would show that

the content of the Facebook post is regarding the product of

the Firm of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent has criticised

the product. Criticism of any product/service made by a

citizen cannot be treated as defamatory though such criticism

may not be of the liking of the manufacturers/producers.

9. Section 499 IPC defines defamation as "Whoever,

by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or

by visible representations, makes or publishes any

imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or

knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will

harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the

cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. This

Court in the judgment in Malayala Manorama Company

Limited and others v. Deepak J. M. and others [2018 KHC

160] has held that what is the content in the body of Section

499 IPC is regarding the harm to the reputation of any

person. Any criticism or loss of reputation of any product Crl.R.P. No.266/2023

therefore cannot be treated as defamatory.

In the afore circumstances, I do not find any

reason to interfere with the order dated 19.12.2022 of the

Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in

CMP No.760/2022. The Criminal Revision Petition is

therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/17.10.2023