Smt Y S Sharmila vs Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3762 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt Y S Sharmila vs Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party ... on 1 May, 2024

                                               1



            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                      MAIN CASE No.: C.M.A.No.301 of 2024

                                      PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
No.           DATE                                   ORDER                            REMARKS

    1.   01.05.2024         GN, J & HN,J

                            1.       Heard Sri. G.V.N.R.S.S.S.Vara Prasad,
                            learned Counsel for the appellant.

                            2.       Learned Senior Counsel has pointed
                            out to the jurisdictional error and canvassed
                            regarding the maintainability of the Suit itself
                            elaborating       that    the     plaintiff   had    no
                            locus standi to maintained the Suit and that
                            he not being authorized by the plaintiff-party,
                            he could not have maintain the Suit. In this
                            regard, he would also placed reliance on the
                            ruling of the learned Single Judge of the
                            Madras High Court in the case of Maridhas
                            Vs.       S.R.S.Umari           Shankar1      wherein,
                            paragraph Nos.14 to 16 reads as follows:

                                  "14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
                                  Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India
                                  reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 held that
                                  whether the complainant is a person
                                  aggrieved has to be determined in each
                                  case according to the fact situation. It was


1
    Crl.OP(MD) No.20774 of 2021
              2


further reiterated following M.S.Jayaraj
Vs. Commissioner of Excise (2000) 7
SCC    552   and   G.   Narasimhan      Vs
T.V.Chokkappa (1972) 2 SCC 680 that if
a Magistrate were to take cognizance of
the offence of defamation on a complaint
filed by one who is not an "aggrieved
person", the trial and conviction of an
accused in such a case by the Magistrate
would be void and illegal. G. Narasimhan
was a case arising under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.

   15. The issue is no longer res-integra.
A learned Judge of this Court (His
Lordship Mr.Justice M.Dhandapani) in the
decision reported in 2021 (3) MWN (Cr.)
159 (Tamilisai Soundararajan Vs. Dhadi
K. Karthikeyan) had held that where the
person or the party alleged to have been
affected by the defamatory statements
have not given any authorization to the
complainant and where the complainant
on his own accord for reasons best known
to him had thought fit to file the private
complaint, he would not be a person
affected and he cannot invoke Section
500 of I.P.C. In the said case, the
petitioner before the High Court had
alleged that Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi
(VCK) is conducting Kangaroo Courts and
had uttered derogatory remarks against
                     3


     the said party and its head. A person
     claiming to be a party member filed a
     complaint. Cognizance was taken and
     summon was issued. The same was
     quashed by the Madras High Court. The
     said decision is squarely applicable to the
     case on hand.

         16. The petitioner had only made
     imputations         against      Ms.Gayathri
     Kanthadai and DMK. No imputation has
     been made against DMK partymen as
     such. The complainant has not suffered
     any legal injury. His reputation has not in
     any way been lowered. The party has not
     authorized the filing of the complaint. If the
     partymen or the members of DMK had
     been defamed, then as a member of a
     definite class of people, the respondent

could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint. Since he is not a person aggrieved, continuation of the impugned proceedings will amount to an abuse of legal process. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

3. Having perused the same, this Court has raised certain issues and sought for

clarification on certain Judgments.

4. We have also heard and Sri. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the opinion that since the appeals involve the issue of injunctive relief, i.e., injuncting the defendants from articulating about issues. The bench is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate if the parties could place before us the propositions that they wish to canvass along with the relied upon material in order to expedite the hearing.

6. Both the counsels have agreed to the same.

7. The parties shall exchange the propositions that they wish to canvass before the Court by 02.05.2024.

8. List this appeal along with connected appeals on 03.05.2024.

_____ GN, J

_____ HN,J PKR