The Kerala High Court dismissed a quashing plea by editors of the Vellinakshathram website, holding that republishing defamatory statements causing reputational harm can attract criminal liability under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, refusing to quash proceedings sought under Section 482 CrPC.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court, while dismissing the quashing petition presented by the editors of the Vellinakshathram publication website, affirmed that if derogatory statements cause reputational harm to the complainant, the accused could still face criminal liability under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, even if these statements have been previously published.
The Court was addressing a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash proceedings against them in a case under Section 500 of the IPC.
The Single Bench, led by Justice G. Girish, stated,
“If it is shown that the derogatory words about the complainant, which were published by the accused, contained any imputation, which would harm the reputation of the complainant, then the fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain does not absolve the criminal liability of the accused, who ventured to publish those derogatory words again by redisplaying the publication already made through another media.”
ALSO READ: Cross-Examination Begins in Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case at Sultanpur Court
The Court emphasized that unless the actions of the accused fell under any of the seven exceptions outlined in Section 499 IPC, they could not be exonerated from criminal liability merely because the statements had already been disseminated by another party.
Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed represented the petitioners, while Advocate R. Bindu represented the respondents.
Factual Backgrounds of the Case:
The case arose following the arrest of a well-known film actor accused of raping an actress. There was a disagreement between the complainant, an actor and director, and the first accused, also connected to the film industry.
The complainant supported the arrested actor, while the first accused vehemently criticized him. This conflict led the first accused to post highly derogatory remarks about the complainant on a Facebook collective named ‘People TV Debate Forum’, of which the complainant was a member. According to the complainant, these defamatory statements were later redisplayed by the second accused (Vellinakshathram publication), the third accused (the Editor-in-Chief of the associated website), and the fourth accused (the website’s Editor).
The complainant claimed that colleagues who viewed these defamatory statements began to perceive him as having a questionable character. He argued that the publication by the accused had harmed his reputation.
The Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 of the CrPC and issued summons to the accused to appear for trial under Section 500 IPC. The petitioners then sought the High Court’s intervention, arguing that defamation charges were not applicable and that the proceedings should be quashed.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that Section 499 IPC does not differentiate between a defamatory publication made for the first time and a redisplayed defamatory publication from another medium. Thus, the court dismissed the petitioners’ initial argument that redisplaying the objectionable material on the website would not constitute an offense under Section 500.
Upon reviewing the statements attributed to the complainant, the Bench found that these words were of a nature likely to diminish the moral and intellectual standing of the complainant in the eyes of others.
The order stated,
“The petitioners, by quoting the above words used by the first accused, in their website, have committed the act of publishing those words of highly defamatory contents, capable of harming the reputation of the complainant. The sworn statement of the complainant would reveal that many of his friends and well-wishers got a negative impression about the character of the complainant by reading the above derogatory words published on the website of the petitioners. Therefore, it is apparent that the matter which the petitioners published on their website was highly defamatory to the complainant,”
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners’ request to quash the complaint could not be granted, and the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Vellinakshathram v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:19976)
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE