The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal-defamation proceedings against the Chief Editor, Editor and a reporter of Malayala Manorama, saying that a news report substantially based on an official Excise record does not, by itself, constitute criminal-defamation merely because it caused embarrassment or injury to reputation.
Justice C.S. Dias allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), quashing the private complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva, in C.C. No. 281 of 2023, filed by Harikumar against the petitioners for publishing a defamatory report on the arrest of the complainant in an Excise case involving alleged offences under Sections 67B and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1902.
The petitioners, by their written statement, submitted that the report published by them was substantially based on the occurrence report received by the concerned Excise authorities. They further contended that the complaint did not allege that they had published the report with an intent to harm the complainant or that they were aware that it would injure his reputation.
The Court found substance in the petitioners’ contention and concluded that the mere fact that publication of the report in the newspaper in question caused embarrassment to the complainant would not make it criminal defamation unless the complainant showed that the report contained an imputation as described in Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1862 (IPC) coupled with an intent to harm, or knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the complainant.
The Court then proceeded to consider the Fourth Exception to Section 499 of IPC providing for exemption from liability for criminal defamation for substantially true reports of proceedings of a Court of Justice. While acknowledging that the said exception to Section 499 of IPC would apply strictly to judicial proceedings, it said that when a report substantially based on an official record of any proceedings is published, the rationale underlying the aforesaid exception may apply unless it is shown that the report went beyond the official records by containing a fabrication, deliberate exaggeration or any other independent defamatory imputations. It noted that while the official occurrence report referred to seizure of 2.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
It further observed that the complaint filed by Harikumar did not particularize facts supporting the allegation that the petitioners published the report with a culpable state of mind or knowledge likely to cause injury to his reputation. The Court clarified that while intent or knowledge is relevant in determining criminal defamation, the question before it was whether the complaint contained sufficient allegations of such a mental element in this case. The subsequent acquittal by the Sessions Court was not conclusive on this issue.
In Philip Mathew v. P. Jayarajan (2023 KHC 685) , Malayalam Communications Ltd. v. K.C. Venugopal (2024 KHC 1545), Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of West Bengal ((2010) 6 SCC 243), and relying on various judgments on the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court said that the complaint filed by Harikumar did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 499 of IPC, and therefore did not make out a case under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 under IPC.
The High Court proceedings were instituted as Crl.M.C. No. 3558 of 2024, while the underlying criminal proceedings were in S.T. No. 1121 of 2023. Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint filed in C.C. No. 281 of 2023 and held that further proceedings against the Chief Editor, Editor, and the reporter should not be continued, as doing so would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Source:
Case: Mammen Mathew & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Reference Number: Crl.M.C. No. 3558 of 2024
Bench: Justice C.S. Dias
Date of Judgement: 5 August 2026