Complaint Filed Before Lawful Authority Does Not Constitute Defamation: Kerala HC

The case involved a complaint made by the petitioner against her brother-in-law, who was employed at Pariyaram Medical College, where the petitioner alleged that he was misbehaving with her and attempting to transfer her mother's property into his and his wife’s name.

The Court referred to the fourth exception under Section 499 of the IPC, which states that publishing a substantially true report of court proceedings or the results of such proceedings does not amount to defamation.

A Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, "Admittedly, in this case, a complaint is filed before the Chief Minister and before the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent was working, in which certain allegations are made by the petitioner and her mother. The Chief Minister forwarded the same to the police station concerned. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the defamation as defined under Sec.499 IPC is made out.There is no publication of any imputation or making any imputation. The complaint is filed before a lawful authority, which was enquired by the authority concerned. That will not attract the offence under Sec.500 IPC,"

Advocate P. Sanjay appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Nandagopal S. Kurip appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner’s complaint described the alleged misbehavior by her brother-in-law and his efforts to misappropriate her mother’s property. Her mother had also filed a similar complaint with the Chief Minister in 2014, accusing her son-in-law of trying to misappropriate the property. The petitioner further stated that her brother-in-law and his wife had raised false allegations against her, claiming she had forged documents related to her property and professional degree.

In response, the brother-in-law filed a defamation suit, arguing that his reputation was damaged as the complaint’s contents were circulated among his colleagues at work. However, the Kerala High Court found no evidence that the petitioner had circulated the complaint. The Court concluded, "The main allegation is about the complaint filed against the 1st respondent which resulted in a Police enquiry and the summoning of the 1st respondent by the Police. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Director of Pariyaram Medical College, where the 1st respondent was working and also a complaint by the mother of the petitioner before the Chief Minister which was forwarded to the Police Station concerned".

The High Court therefore allowed the petitioner's plea and quashed the defamation case, ruling that the complaint filed did not constitute defamation, and no offence under Section 500 IPC had been made out.

Cause Title: Pooja Anand v Ashokan K. & Anr., [2024:KER:84434]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates P. Sanjay, A. Paravathi Menon

Respondents: Advocate Nandagopal S. Kurip

Click here to read/download Order