The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against the Chief Editor, Editor and a Reporter of Malayala Manorama, holding that merely reporting an arrest based on an official occurrence report does not, by itself, amount to criminal defamation.
Justice C.S. Dias passed the order on August 5, 2026, while considering Crl.M.C. No. 3558 of 2024. The Court found that the complaint did not contain the necessary allegations showing an intention or knowledge to harm the complainant’s reputation.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a news report published after the Excise authorities arrested Harikumar in connection with a case under the Kerala Abkari Act. The report concerned his arrest and also carried his photograph.
Harikumar alleged that the newspaper report contained incorrect details. According to the complaint, official records referred to the seizure of 2.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, while the news report stated that three litres had been seized and suggested that the liquor was intended for sale. He claimed that the publication damaged his reputation.
The Chief Editor Mammen Mathew, Editor Philip Mathew and Reporter Saleesh K.B. approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint filed under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal defamation. Justice Dias observed that Section 499 IPC requires an imputation coupled with the intention, knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm the person’s reputation.
“The essence of the offence, therefore, remains the existence of mens rea,” the Court remarked, explaining that an adverse or embarrassing publication does not automatically constitute criminal defamation.
The Court further distinguished between an independent defamatory assertion and reporting an official act. It held that where a publication substantially reflects an official record and is not accompanied by an independent malicious imputation, the mere fact that it may cause embarrassment cannot ordinarily support criminal defamation proceedings.
The Court noted that the complaint did not allege sufficient circumstances to show that the petitioners deliberately fabricated the report with the requisite intention or knowledge to defame Harikumar.
Decision
Justice C.S. Dias held that the complaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court accordingly exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioners.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mammen Mathew & Others v. State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 3558 of 2024
Judge: Justice C.S. Dias
Decision Date: August 5, 2026
 Act, 2007 KAAPA-300x169.webp)
