Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Mohiniyattom Artists

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against renowned Mohiniyattom dancers Ramakrishnan and Ullas U., which stemmed from a defamation complaint filed by Kalamandalam Sathyabhama in 2018. The complaint was based on an alleged telephonic conversation that was said to have defamed her.

Read in Hindi

The proceedings originated from a private complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant alleged that Ramakrishnan had secretly recorded a phone conversation with her and later, along with Ullas, published certain parts of the conversation on social media in a way that harmed her reputation.

Read also:- Fake 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' Account Shown in Court to Highlight Social Media Misuse

However, Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, presiding over the matter, found significant shortcomings in the complaint.

"The complaint did not reproduce the alleged defamatory statement nor specify the date of publication," the Court highlighted.

Moreover, the Court noted that the complainant did not submit any material evidence, such as the actual publication or media clip, to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Despite alleging that the conversation was spread through digital and print media, no such evidence was produced.

Read also:- Bombay HC Upholds Mother's Right As Natural Guardian After Father’s Death Despite Child Living With Grandparents

The complaint also lacked clarity on:

• What exact words or parts of the conversation were defamatory.
• When or how the material was published.
• Who precisely made the statements and where.

Referring to the legal precedent set in Konath Madhavi Amma v. S.M. Sherief (1985 KLT 317), the Court emphasized:

"In defamation cases, the complaint must clearly mention the actual defamatory words. Missing or vague allegations cannot be corrected during the trial by adding new evidence later."

Read also:- Kerala HC Reviews Law Student's Challenge to MG University's Internship Restriction Policy

Justice Edappagath reaffirmed that without the production of the alleged defamatory material, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under Section 500 IPC.

"No useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners to continue," the judgment concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

Case Title: Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 7442 of 2019