Madras High Court

Dr. R. Krishnamurthy vs The City Public Prosecutor on 10 August, 2021

                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 10.08.2021

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016
                                                            and
                                              Crl.M.P.Nos.3639 & 3640 of 2016

                     1.Dr. R. Krishnamurthy,
                       Editor and Printer,
                       Dinamalar (RF), New Standard Press,
                       T.V.R.House, Medavakkam,
                       Chennai 600 010.

                     2.Dr. R. Lakshmipathy,                                         ... Petitioners
                       Publisher,
                       Dinamalar (RF), New Standard Press,
                       T.V.R.House, Medavakkam,
                       Chennai 600 100.
                                                    Versus

                     The City Public Prosecutor,
                     City Civil Court Buildings,
                     Chennai - 600 104.                                             ... Respondent

                           Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
                     Procedure Code, to call for the records and to quash the proceedings in
                     C.C.No.28 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
                     Judge, Chennai.

                                    For Petitioners     : Mr. S. Elambharathi
                                    For Respondent      : Mr. E. Raj Thilak,
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.side)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                     1/8
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016


                                                          ORDER

The petitioners have filed this Criminal Original Petition praying

to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 28 of 2016 on the file of the Principal

Sessions Judge, Chennai in which they were arrayed as accused 1 and 2.

2.The complaint under Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure was filed by the respondent herein praying to punish the

petitioners herein for having allegedly committed the offence under

Section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the

respondent/complainant, the first petitioner herein is the Editor and Printer

of Tamil Daily "Dinamalar" and the second petitioner is the publisher of

the said Daily. It is the specific complaint of the respondent that the

petitioners published a news item in the Tamil Daily on 03.02.2016 in

which in Page No.3, it was stated that inspite of the warning or flood alert

given 48 hours before, the Department of Disaster Management,

Government of Tamil Nadu has not taken any steps to mitigate the

damages to the City. In other words, by such publication, the petitioners

have made malicious and defamatory statements attributable towards the

then Minister for Revenue Thiru. R.B. Udayakumar. It is contended that

the news item, if read as a whole, it would disclose that it is per se https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016

defamatory and it contains all the ingredients required to constitute the

offence of defamation. Therefore, after obtaining sanction for prosecution,

the complaint was filed before the Court below.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to cause harm or

imputation to the then Minister for Revenue. A plain reading of the news

item would clearly establish that it is not at all defamatory as alleged by

the respondent. The allegations based on which the criminal complaint

was filed does not in any way touch upon the conduct of the aggrieved

person in discharge of their public function. The allegation even if taken

as it is, only can be construed as a personal defamation. Therefore, the

complaint that was filed by the City Public Prosecutor cannot be

maintained since it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 199(2) of

Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed this Court

to allow this Criminal Original Petition.

4.On the above contention, this Court heard the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the

materials placed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016

5.The petitioners herein are facing prosecution for the alleged

offences punishable under Section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.

When an identical issue came up before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3817 of

2016 filed by the petitioners herein, this Court allowed the said Petition on

12.07.2021. The order dated 12.07.2021 can usefully be extracted

hereunder:-

"3.The complaint has been filed through the City Public Prosecutor under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C., r/w the relevant Government Orders.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken as it is, the same does not constitute defamatory allegations with respect to the act or conduct of the then Chief Minister in discharge of her public functions and at the best it can only be treated as a personal defamation. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that such a complaint cannot be maintained through the City Public Prosecutor and it does not satisfy the requirements under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl.17 and R.Avudayappan v. Muthukaruppan Public Prosecutor District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli District reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 24.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for Government (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioners have indulged in making wild allegations against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and thereby have defamed her name in the eyes of the general public. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners in the name of freedom of press cannot make such defamatory and derogatory allegations against the former Chief Minister and the petitioners will have to necessarily face the trial before the Court below and prove their innocence.

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7.The defamatory statements that were relied upon from the news item published by the magazine has been extracted in the complaint and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder:-

In the Cover Page as:

"bgUkiHia bts;skhf khw;wpa jkpHf muR” "bgUkiHia bts;skhf khw;wpa jkpHf muR” RU';fr;

brhd;dhy;. KiH kpft[k; Fiwthfnth my;yJ ,y;yhknyh ,Ue;j etk;gu; khjj;jpd; ,Wjp thuj;jpy;. Vhpapy; ,Uf;Fk; ePiu btspnaw;wp ePupd; msitf; Fiwf;f bghJg;gzpj;Jiw mjpfhupfs; ghpe;Jiu bra;Jk; Tl ve;j eltof;ifa[k; vLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ bghJg;gzpj;Jiw brayu;. jiyikr;brayupd; cj;jut[f;fjf fhj;jpUf;fpwhh;; jiyykr;braynuh. Kjy;tupd; cj;jut[f;fhf fhj;jpUf;fpwhh;/ ,e;j ,lj;jpy; bghJg;gzpj;Jiw mikr;ru; X/gp/v!;/. rpd; cj;jput[f;fhf. Jiyikr;brayu; fhj;jpUf;fpwhu; vd;Wjhd;. ehk; vGjpapUf;f https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016

ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; ,J. b$/. tpd; Ml;rp. mtu; Ml;rpapy;. Miziaj; jpwf;f ehd; cj;jputpl;Ls;nsd; mizia K:l ehd; Miz gwg;gpj;Js;nsd; vd. vy;yh ntiyfisa[k;. b$/. nt ,Gj;Jg;nghl;Lr; bra;thu; vd;gjhy;. ,jpy; kl;Lk; ehk;. X/gp/v!;/. ir ,Gj;JtpLtJ mwk; my;y/ mjdhy; jiyikr;brayu;. b$/. tpd; Mizf;fhfj; jhd; fhj;jpUf;fpwhu; vd;gJ FHe;ijf;Fk; bjspt[/”

8.Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., provides a special procedure with regard to the initiation of proceedings for prosecution for defamation of a public servant. However, to maintain such a prosecution, the allegations must directly touch upon acts or conduct of the concerned servant in discharge of his or her public function. If the defamatory statement is personal in nature, this special procedure will not apply and it is only the concerned person who has to file the complaint in his or her individual capacity. The law on this issue is well settled and the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied upon the judgments mentioned supra.

9.The allegations based on which the criminal complaint was filed and which has been extracted supra, does not in any way touch upon the conduct of the aggrieved person in discharge of her public function. The allegation even if taken as it is, only can be construed as a personal defamation. Therefore, the complaint that was filed by the City Public Prosecutor cannot be maintained since it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. It is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.No.6985 of 2016

seen that this complaint is pending from the year 2016 onwards without any progress. No useful purpose will be served by keeping this complaint pending.

10.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned and accordingly, the same is quashed.....”

6.The facts of the case in hand is squarely covered by the order

passed by this Court, mentioned supra. Therefore, in the light of the above

order passed by this Court, this Criminal Original Petition is also allowed.

The proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai are quashed. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

10.08.2021

Speaking /Non-Speaking Order klt

1.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.

3.The City Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/