Kerala High Court
Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:66536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7322 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRRP NO.69 OF 2019 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
MANOJ
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN) PUTHEN VEETTIL (KRISHNAKRIPA)
VELLINEZHI POST OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679504
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SARATH K.P.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 BALASUBRAMANIAN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O RAMATHARAKAN AZHAKAPPATH HOUSE THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P
O, PIN - 679514
Crl.M.C.No.7322 of 2024 2
2024:KER:66536
3 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O KANNANKUTTITHARAKAN KUNNATHODI HOUSE
THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679514
4 PRADEEP
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN KRISHNA NIVAS (KANJUR) VELLINEZHI P O
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 670504
5 RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O KUNJAN KODUKATIL HOUSE VELINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PIN - 670504
6 SASI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KUNJAN POTTIKUZHICHALA KURUVATTUR
THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679514
7 T N SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O CHERIYA NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI THELAKKATT MANA
VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679504
8 SHAJAHAN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O APPUNNI THARAKAN PAKKATTIL VEEDU VELLINEZHI P O
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 670504
9 BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O GOPI KOLARKUNNATH VEEDU THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O-
OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679514
10 K RAJAGOPALAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA KOLARIKUNNATH VEEDU THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679514
11 K. NARAYANAN
S/O CHOZHI KARATTIL VEEDU VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PIN - 679504
12 K NARAYANANKUTTY
AGED 50 YEARS
Crl.M.C.No.7322 of 2024 3
2024:KER:66536
S/O KUNJAN KODUKATTIL VEEDU VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM
TALUK., PIN - 679514
13 P C RAVI
AGED 50 YEARS
PARAKKAL VEEDU THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK.,
PIN - 679514
14 KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI
AGED 52 YEARS MADHURAMATTAM MANA VELLINEZHI P O
OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679504
15 KUNJU KUTTAN
AGED 60 YEARS S/O PUTHARA THARAKAN PAKKATIL VEEDU
THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679514
16 KUTTAN
AGED 54 YEARS S/O ERA KUNDULLIPARAMBU
THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679514
17 RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 50 YEARS S/O ERA KUNDULLIPARAMBU,
THIRUNARAYANAPURAM P O OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679514
18 SATHYANATHAN
AGED 60 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNA MENON VENGALI HOUSE
VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679504
19 P S KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS S/O SANKARAKUTTY NAIR PUTHANVEETTIL
VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM TALUK., PIN - 679504
20 K BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 70 YEARS S/O GOVINDAN NAIR KRISHNA NIVAS
VELLINEZHI P O – OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679504
21 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 46 YEARS ALUKUNDIL HOUSE VELLINEZHI P O OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PIN - 679504
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
Crl.M.C.No.7322 of 2024 4
2024:KER:66536
03.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7322 of 2024 5
2024:KER:66536
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.M.C.No.7322 of 2024
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner was the complainant in Crl.M.P.
No.3173 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate's Court-1, Ottappalam. He alleged
that the accused had consipred to defame him and
on that basis, filed a complaint before the police
on 02.08.2016, alleging that, cameras were placed
in his house in such a way as to affect the
privacy of the family of the defacto complainant
therein and of the general public. Pursuant to
the said complaint an investigation was conducted
and the police found the allegations to be false.
Petitioner thereafter filed C.M.P. No. 3173 of
2017 alleging the offence of defamation against
the respondents. The learned Magistrate after
2024:KER:66536
taking the statement of the complainant came to
the conclusion that the petition filed by the
accused to the police was not done with any
malafide intention, especially, since the location
of the CCTV cameras could have created a
reasonable apprehension regarding the privacy of
an individual. On that basis, the learned
magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section
203 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Challenging the aforesaid dismissal
revision petition was filed before the Sessions
Court as Crl.R.P No.69/2019. By the impugned
order dated 20.12.2022 the learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the revision, after finding that,
circumstances reveal that the action of the
accused can even come within the eighth and ninth
exemptions of Section 499 IPC and also that the
learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the
compliant. This petition is filed challenging the
aforesaid orders.
2024:KER:66536
3. I have heard Shri. S. Rajeev, the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Shri. C.N. Prabhakaran, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. The impugned order of the Sessions
Court is dated 20.12.2022. For the last 21 months,
petitioner had not deemed it appropriate to
challenge the impugned order. The said delay
certainly stares at the face of the petitioner.
The delay of such a long period has to be taken
into reckoning by this Court while considering
this petition seeking exercise of the inherent
powers of this Court.
5. Apart from the above, the complaint
filed by the respondents before the police was on
the basis of an apprehension that the CCTV Camera
installed by the petitioner was an intrusion into
the provacy of the accused. As rightly mentioned
2024:KER:66536
by the learned Special Judge, the complaint was
only an imputation made in good faith by a person
for protection of his or others interest, apart
from it being an accusation made to an authorized
person. Since, no malafides could be pointed out
in the said accusation, I do not find any
perversity in the impugned orders warranting an
interference by this court under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Having regard to the aforsaid cirumstances,
I am satisfied that, this is not a fit case to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
Hence, this Crl.M.C is diposed of .
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
mus
2024:KER:66536
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I REPLY RECIEVIED FROM CI OF POLICE,
CHERPLASERRY DATED 21.11.2016.
Annexure-II COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 108653/2016
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, CHERUPLASERRY
Annexure-III A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 44113/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 25.01.2017 ALONG WITH RECIEPT
Annexure-IV A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 IN CMP
NO 3173/2017 ON THE FILES OF JFCM I,
OTTAPPALAM
Annexure-V COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN CRL RP
NO 69/2019 BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS,
PALAKKAD
