Kerala High Court
P.V.Chandran vs G.Sabu on 17 October, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 5817 OF 2017 1
2024:KER:77892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5817 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.68 OF 2017
OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.V.CHANDRAN
PRINTER, PUBLISHEER & MANAGING EDITOR,'THOZHIL
VARTHA, MATHRUBHOOMI BUILDING,K.P KESAVA MENON
ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001(ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE
COMPLAINT)
2 M.P GOPINATH
EDITOR-IN-CHARGE,THOZHIL VARTHA, MATHRUBHOOMI
BUILDING,K.P KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673
001(ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE COMPLAINT)
3 P.S RAKESH
REPORTER,THOZHIL VARTHA, MATHRUBHOOMI
BUILDING,K.P KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673
001(ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE COMPLAINT)
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 G.SABU
CRL.MC NO. 5817 OF 2017 2
2024:KER:77892
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.N GOPINATHAN NAIR,SURABHI
HOUSE, ELATHUR POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 303
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
C.V.MANUVILSAN
NAEEM IBRAHIM(K/374-P/2000)
O.A.ANJU(K/000515/2018)
VRINDA LAKSHMANAN(K/001663/2023)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 5817 OF 2017 3
2024:KER:77892
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 5817 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.68/2017 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections
499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is a private complaint filed by the 1 st
respondent.
2. The complainant was working as Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Bureau, Kerala, and according to him, he was working as
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Northern Range,
Kozhikode, from 05.01.2015 onwards. The complainant
married to one Sheeja V, who is a graduate in Physics and
2024:KER:77892
is also having other educational qualifications. It is the
case of the complainant that, his wife had secured a place
in the rank list published by the Calicut University,for the
post of Assistants, after successfully passing the eligibility
examinations. According to the complainant, his wife
ranked 57 in the rank list published by the Calicut
University for the post of Assistant and she was served with
an appointment order on 30.01.2016 and she joined service
on 02.02.2016 as University Assistant.
3. The crux of the allegation raised by the 1st
respondent in his private complaint is about a defamatory
news came in 'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha'. In the edition
dated 27.02.2016 of 'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha', a news
item was published in the front page that there is a large
scale corruption in the appointments made to the posts of
'University Assistant' at Calicut University. To be precise,
the gist of the grievance of the 1 st respondent is that the
news item in its content states that, in the selection
2024:KER:77892
process, various types of corruption and nepotism paved
way to inducting ineligible candidates. The 1 st respondent
herein alleged in his complaint that the news items
published contained an averment to the effect that 'the wife
of the Vigilance Officer, who is conducting enquiry into the
allegation against the personal assistant of the former Vice
Chancellor of the University, who had allegedly scored only
average marks in the written examination received 18
marks in the interview and with the aid of the same, she
secured higher position in the ranklist.' The 1 st respondent
alleged that the aforesaid assertion made in the news item
published is defamatory. Hence, it is alleged that the
petitioners, who are the Printer and Publisher, Editor-in-
charge and Reporter of ' 'Mathrubhumi' committed the
offence under Sec. 500 IPC. When the complaint was filed,
a sworn statement of the 1 st respondent was taken and
another witness was also examined. Annexures-B and C are
the statements. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took
2024:KER:77892
cognizance based on the complaint. According to the
petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
offence is made out. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous
case is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
in between March 2015 and May 2015, interview was
conducted to the post of 'Assistants' by the interview board
of the Calicut University. It is also submitted that though
the board was headed by the Vice Chancellor for 7 days,
the remaining 32 days, the interview was conducted under
the leadership of pro-vice chancellor. On 15.08.2015, the
Vice Chancellor through an interview given to Mathrubhumi
Thozhil vartha has raised very serious allegations touching
upon the gross irregularity that has been committed by the
interview board in awarding marks and as such, he
expressed the view that the selected list cannot be
2024:KER:77892
confirmed. The petitioners also submitted that the Vice
Chancellor stated that the marks awarded to certain
candidates during the interview was highly disproportionate
and as such, the same cannot be countenanced. Annexure-
D is the relevant page of the 'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha'
dated 15.08.2015, which published the interview with the
Vice Chancellor. Annexure-E is the relevant page of the
'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha' dated 27.02.2016 containing
the alleged objectionable news item leading to the present
complaint. According to the petitioners, the news items
published in Annexure-E when read as a whole cannot give
rise to a possible inference that the same is intended to
defame the 1st respondent. According to the petitioners, the
news item in its content was published to point out the
gross irregularities and illegalities committed by the
'interview board' in the matter of appointing and publishing
the 'rank list' to the post of the Assistant at Calicut
University. When such serious allegations are raised about
2024:KER:77892
the violation of norms and regulations by an autonomous
body working under the financial grant of the State
Government, it is the duty of the responsible media to
convey such matters to the general public and it was in that
context that the news item was published in 'Mathrubhumi
Thozhil Vartha' in good faith and in public interest is the
submission. It is also submitted that the Vigilance case was
under the investigation by the Vigilance unit, Kozhikode
about the irregularities and the 1st respondent admittedly
was working as Dy.Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau. Therefore, it is submitted that no
offence is committed by the petitioners. It is also submitted
that the petitioners are not aggrieved parties as stated in
Sec. 199 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners, the name of
the 1st respondent or the name of his wife is not mentioned
in the news item. The counsel for the petitioners also takes
me through paragraph 13 of Annexure-A complaint and
stated that the 1st respondent admit that he was never in
2024:KER:77892
charge of the Vigilance unit, which enquired any matters
with regard to the Calicut University. Therefore, it is
submitted that the 1st respondent is not an aggrieved party.
5. The counsel for the 1st respondent seriously
disputed the contentions raised by the petitioners. The
counsel submitted that the contentions raised by the
petitioners are all matters of evidence. The counsel for the
1st respondent takes me through the averments in
Annexure-A and submitted that the same is per-se
defamatory to the 1st respondent. The counsel submitted
that serious allegations are made in Annexure-A complaint
against the petitioners and therefore, this Court may not
interfere with the prosecution initiated by him against the
petitioners.
6. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioners and the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the Vice-
Chancellor of the University gave a statement which is
published in the 'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha' on
2024:KER:77892
15.08.2015 as evident by Annexure-D. In the interview, it
is specifically stated that several candidates attended the
interview were given marks without any basis. This Court
perused Annexure-E, the disputed news item published on
27.02.2016. The name of the 1st respondent is not
mentioned in it. Similarly, the name of the 1 st respondent's
wife is also not mentioned in it. Admittedly, the 1 st
respondent's wife obtained selection to the post of
Assistant. Paragraph 13 of Annexure-A complaint is
extracted hereunder :
13. "The complainant has never investigated or
enquired any allegation or matters with regard to Calicut
University as vigilance officer in his capacity in that
particular point of time or during the previous terms with
vigilance and anti-corruption bureau Complainant has
never investigated or enquired into any matters with
regard to Calicut University in any other official capacity
in his police life. Complainant is producing copy of the
RTI query reply received from vigilance and anti
corruption Bureau Northern Range, Kozhikode, showing a
list of investigation/enquiry related to Calicut university
matters, conducted by vigilance and officers who
conducted those enquires/investigation, to prove this
2024:KER:77892
point."
7. From the above, it is clear that the 1 st
respondent was never in charge of the investigation team.
If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that the
1st respondent is not an aggrieved party under Sec. 199
Cr.P.C. The 1st respondent need not presume that the news
published in 'Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha' is against him
and his wife. As I mentioned earlier, the Vice Chancellor of
the University stated that the mark is allotted to the
candidates in the interview, without any basis. In tune with
the same, the petitioners published a news item,
subsequent to Annexure-D interview was published. On
going through Annexure-E, I am of the considered opinion
that, there is no defamatory statement against the 1st
respondent in it. Moreover, the media is trying to publish
news and it is not proper to prosecute media in all cases
without any basis. I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution against the petitioners need not be continued.
2024:KER:77892
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is
allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in
CC No. 68/2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Kozhikode are quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV/SKS
2024:KER:77892
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
PREFERRED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION
200 CR.PC
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF CW2
RECORDED IN THE INSTANT CASE
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 15-
08-2015 WHICH PUBLISHED THE INTERVIEW
WITH THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CALICUT
UNIVERSITY
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 27-
02-2016 CONTAINING THE ALLEGED
OBJECTIONABLE NEWS ITEM, GIVING RISE TO
THE INSTANT COMPLAINT
