ORDER : The above two cases are filed to quash two defamation cases, in which the complainant and 5th accused are common. Complainant is a nonagenarian and the 5th accused is centenarian. Complainant and the 5th accused are politicians. 2. An interview of the 5th accused came in the publication of the Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. and Janasakthi weekly. According to the complainant, certain portion of the interview published by Malayala Manorama and Janasakthi weekly are defamatory to him and hence he filed two complaints as C.C.No. 61 of 2011 against Janasakthi weekly and C.C.No.62 of 2011 was filed against the Malayala Manorama Company. Both cases are filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC. Since the complainant is common and the issue to be decided is also common, I dispose these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases by a common judgment. 3. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.62 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No. 61 of 2011. 4. In Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013, the allegation is that, an article was printed and published by the petitioners therein in the Malayala Manorama weekly 2009 vol.19 book No.19 in page 22 under the caption 'Atmakatha'. It was the Malayala Manorama Weekly Annual 2009, published in connection with the Onam celebration in September 2009. In that article, with a separate sub heading, certain passage has been published and according to the complainant, the imputations are about him and the same are false and incorrect. According to the complainant, the same is per se defamatory. The relevant portion of the article relied by the complainant is extracted here under: xxx xxx xxx 5. According to the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 4 have printed and published the same with malafide intention and without taking due care and caution. According to the complainant, the aforesaid allegations are made and published with the intention to tarnish the image of the complainant. 6. Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 was filed by the Janasakthi weekly, its Printer, Publisher, Managing Editor etc to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. According to the complainant, the aforesaid allegations are made and published with the intention to tarnish the image of the complainant. 6. Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 was filed by the Janasakthi weekly, its Printer, Publisher, Managing Editor etc to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The above case was filed by the complainant against the Janasakthi weekly and its office bearers for an article published in the Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication 2009. An article was printed and published by accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.61 of 2011 in Janasakthi Weekly Annual Publication, 2009 dated 20.8.2009 in connection with the Onam celebration in September, 2009. In that article also with a sub heading the following statements are published. Xxx xxx xx 7. According to the complainant, the accused in the case published and circulated the same with the common intention of defaming the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 500 IPC. 8. The accused in both cases want to quash the proceedings contending that, there is no intentional act on the part of them to defame the complainant and it is only an interview of the 5th accused in both cases, which is being published by the petitioners in their publication. Moreover, they also contended that, a reading of the imputations alleged to be against the complainant, the same will not amount to an offence under Section 500 IPC. Hence, they wanted to quash the proceedings pending before the lower court. 9. Heard the senior counsel K.P.Dandapani for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.2044 of 2013 and Adv.P.Sanjay for the petitioners in Crl.M.CNo.1549 of 2016. Advocate Rajan Babu appeared for the 5th accused who are arrayed as 5th respondent in both the cases. Heard Adv.T.D.Robbin for the complainant. 10. It is conceded before this court at the time of argument that, the dispute between the complainant and 5th accused are settled out of court. The counsel for the complainant submitted that, he has no grievance against the 5th accused in the case, in the light of a settlement arrived between the complainant and the 5th accused. Therefore, what remains is the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.Nos. 61 of 2011 and 62 of 2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Therefore, what remains is the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.Nos. 61 of 2011 and 62 of 2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners in both cases should publish an apology for publishing the article. The counsel for the petitioners in both the Crl.M.Cs are not ready for the same and they want a decision on merit in this case. Hence, I have to consider the issue on merit. 11. It is a case in which an interview of the 5th accused was published by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in both cases. Complainant alleged that a portion of the publication is per se defamatory to him. Admittedly, after filing the cases, the dispute between the complainant and 5th accused is settled out of court. In such circumstances, according to me, there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners in this Crl.M.Cs. 12. Moreover, a reading of the alleged defamatory statements which is extracted above, I am not in a position say that, these publications were made by the petitioners with any malafide intention to tarnish the image of the complainant in both the cases. In V.S.Achuthanandan v. Kamalamma ( 2008(3) KLT 346 ) this Court held that, if the publication is not with any malafide intention, no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out. In Maman Mathew v. Radhakrishnan M.N ( 2007(4) KLT 833 ) this court observed that a mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge, or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. 13. A reading of the article published by the petitioners in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, it can be seen that it is a statement given by the 5th accused. 5th accused has not denied the statement even before this court, even though she stated that, the matter was settled between by her with the complainant. After the complainant settle the issue with the 5th accused in both the cases, I see no reason to continue the prosecution against the petitioners simply because the statement of the 5th accused is published by the petitioners. 14. After the complainant settle the issue with the 5th accused in both the cases, I see no reason to continue the prosecution against the petitioners simply because the statement of the 5th accused is published by the petitioners. 14. Moreover, I perused the alleged imputation, which aggrieved the complainant to file the complaint, which is extracted in the earlier paragraph. Going through the statement it can be seen that the 5th accused gave a statement that the balance amount collected in connection with the Party Congress of the party in which the complainant and 5th accused were working was utilized for purchasing a car to the Ernakulam District Committee of the CPI(M). It is also stated that the land in which the complainant now reside is also purchased using the said amount. This is the crux of the issue which leads to the complaint. After going through the above statement, I am of the opinion that the publication of the above statement of the 5th accused by the petitioners in both the Criminal Miscellaneous cases, are with any intention, knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. In such circumstances, according to me, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners who are the publishers in the two cases pending before the lower court are abuse of process of court, especially in the light of the fact that the dispute between the complainant and 5th accused are settled out of court. Hence, Crl.M.C.No.2044 of 2013 & Crl.M.C.No.1549 of 2016 are allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.61/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and CC No.62/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam against the petitioners are quashed.