Reprieve To Journalist, Kerala HC Directs Magistrate To Consider Afresh Summoning Order Passed Without 'Applying Mind', Says It Affects Dignity

Justice Sophy Thomas while setting aside the summons stated that criminal courts have to be careful in taking cognizance and issuing summons since criminal proceedings could be used as a weapon of harassment or retaliation.

“ Taking cognizance and issuing summons to a person as accused in a criminal case is a serious matter affecting his dignity, self respect and image in the society. So, criminal courts have to be careful while taking cognizance and issuing summons to an accused, as we often see criminal proceedings are being resorted to as a weapon of harassment or retaliation.”

The respondent, an advocate filed a defamation case against the petitioner under Section 500 of the IPC. The petitioner has thus approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagapally wherein a summons was issued to her under Section 204 CrPC.

The petitioner submitted that the video was made based on various books and publications by different authors and that she did not add anything on her own. It was argued that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to attract an offence for punishment of defamation under Section 500 IPC.

The Court stated that the Magistrate after hearing the witnesses issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 204 CrPC without proper application of mind. It stated that even though a detailed order was not necessary for the issuance of summons, at least the proceedings must show that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding.

“Learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused in a one line order stating that, he was satisfied that there are prima facie case under Section 500 IPC. That order will not show that, how the learned Magistrate arrived at that satisfaction. There is no mention about the statements given by the complainant and his witnesses to show that, the learned Magistrate went through the statements and satisfied himself with the offence alleged, so as to issue summons to the accused. How the learned Magistrate arrived at that satisfaction should reflect in the order taking cognizance so that a person who come across that order also must get the satisfaction, that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and statements recorded during the enquiry”, stated the Court

Thus, the Court found that the impugned order of the Magistrate issuing summons was served without being satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constituted an offence of defamation.

Accordingly, the proceedings of the Magistrate issuing summons were set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Akash S. Girish Kumar M S, V S Varalekshmi, Neethu S

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan, Advocate T K Ajan (appeared party in person)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

Case title: Manuja Mythri v Advocate T K Ajan

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 7466 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order