Santhosh P @ Santhosh Pandit vs Suraj Venjarammoodu

N. Nagaresh, J

The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in CMP No.3287/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2019 by which the Magistrate has dismissed his complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The complaint of the revision petitioner arises out of a program named “Mimicry Mahamela” which is telecasted in Mazhavil Manorama TV Channel on 30.08.2018. The revision petitioner submits that respondents 1 to 5 committed offences punishable under Sections 120B and 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The allegation is that the 1st respondent, who was the Captain of the program, promoted the staging of the program with the 5th respondent. Under the guise of mimicking the revision petitioner, the 5th respondent impersonated the petitioner and went on to portray the petitioner as a comic figure. The 1st respondent led the whole show and respondents 2 to 4 aided in the commission of the offence. The telecast of the show did lower the reputation of the revision petitioner in the eyes of general public.

Though the petitioner deposed the entire facts as narrated by him when he was examined by the court below, the court below arrived at a wrong conclusion. According to the petitioner, the real character of the petitioner is nowhere close to the one depicted by the 5th respondent. The character of the petitioner was shown like a clown. Had the 5th respondent just mimicked and uttered some film dialogues rendered by the petitioner, the petitioner would not have been aggrieved. The 5th respondent has, in fact, impersonated the petitioner. The act of respondents 1 to 5 has caused dishonour and disgrace to the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 5 therefore cannot be allowed to go scot free.

Respondents 2 to 4 resisted the Crl.R.P. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that the revision petitioner is a Cine Artist and the 5th respondent has only mimicked the petitioner in a mimicry program telecasted. The 5th respondent was introduced in the telecasted program disclosing his name and identity. Therefore, there cannot be any question of impersonation. The petitioner has no reason to get agitated over a mimicry program in which a character has been depicted. There was no intention to defame the petitioner nor the petitioner has been defamed in any manner. The revision petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 6th respondent.

The revision petitioner submits that on 30.08.2018 in a program titled 'Mimicry Mahamela' telecasted by Mazhavil Manorama TV Channel, the petitioner has been impersonated. The 1st respondent anchored the program. The 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of the TV Channel and 3rd and 4th respondents are Producer and Director respectively. The 5th respondent in the 'Mimicry Mahamela' impersonated the revision petitioner, it is alleged.

The complaint filed by the revision petitioner alleging offence under Sections 120B and 500 read with Section 34 IPC was considered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala. The Magistrate's Court found that the program itself is a Mimicry Comedy Competition Program and at the end of the performance, the 5th respondent has introduced himself and all details about him to the public, in the course of the program. The learned Magistrate was convinced that the performance was not intended to harm or demoralise the petitioner. The competition was of copying the voice and movements of personalities.

The learned Magistrate found that the identity of the performer was disclosed during the program itself and therefore there is no reason to believe that such dialogues will directly or indirectly lower the moral or intellectual character of the petitioner in the estimation of others.

I do not find any illegality in the order dated 13.05.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala. The 5th respondent mimicked the petitioner in a mimicry competition program aired by a Television Channel. The 5th respondent gave his identity during the program itself. Therefore, the question of impersonation does not arise.

The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the 5th respondent made certain comments about a Film Director, as if the said comments are of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner does not share the comments about the Director so made by the 5th respondent. The comments have offended the said Film Director as well as the petitioner. Hence, respondents 1 to 5 should be prosecuted.

I do not find any legal force in the arguments so advanced. Mimicry is a form of art where participants depict various personalities and even birds and animals. The viewers watch the program to find how far the words, voice and body language of the person depicted, are resembling the person. That does not mean that the viewers would take whatever dialogues and comments made by the performer as the dialogues and comments of the character. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the views expressed by the 5th respondent about a Film Director, while mimicking the revision petitioner, would be taken by the viewers as views of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala in rejecting the complaint filed by the revision petitioner. The criminal revision petition is therefore without any merit and hence it is dismissed.