Madras High Court

M/S.Vijay Tv Pvt. Ltd vs K.R.Kukesh on 1 December, 2021

                                                                     Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 01.12.2021

                                                     CORAM :

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                         Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 & 22778 of 2017
                                                        and
                                         Crl.M.P.Nos.13270 & 13283 of 2017

                     M/s.Vijay TV Pvt. Ltd.
                     Represented by its Authorized Signatory
                     Bhaskar.M.,
                     No.15, Jaganathan Street,
                     Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.            ... Petitioner
                                                                     in Crl.O.P.No.22759 of 2017

                     M/s.Endemol India Pvt. Ltd.
                     Represented by its Managing Director,
                     16th Floor, Grandeur,
                     Veera Desai Road Extn.,
                     Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053.              ... Petitioner
                                                                     in Crl.O.P.No.22778 of 2017

                                                           Vs.

                     K.R.Kukesh
                     President,
                     Tamil Nadu Isai VellalarIllaignarNalaSangam,
                     1/271, 1st Floor, KalameguSalai,
                     Mugappair West, Chennai – 600 037.        ... Respondents

in both petitions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.7625 of 2017 on the file of the

XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Allikulam, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmuga Velayudham Senior Counsel for Mr.Harishankar Mani in Crl.O.P.No.22759 of 2017

: Mr.N.R.Elango Senior Counsel for Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam in Crl.O.P.No.22778 of 2017

For Respondent : No appearance in both petitions

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.7625 of 2017 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan

Magistrate Court at Allikulam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

2.Crl.O.P.No.22759 of 2017 has been filed by A1 and

Crl.O.P.No.22778 of 2017 has been filed by A4, who have been arrayed as

accused in a private complaint filed for defamation.

3.The case of the complainant is that, A1 was telecasting a TV

Programme by name “Bigg Boss” produced by A4, conducted by A2 as a

Host, and A3 acted in the Programme as a participant. In the above

Programme telecasted on 14.07.2017, A3 was acting as a 'Naathaswara

Vidwan' holding Naathaswaram (musical instrument) and dancing with the

Naathaswaram and also throwing the Naathaswaram from one hand to other

hand in a very cavalier manner. Thereafter, the above instrument was kept

on the dining table and the participants were sitting and having their food

items. Hence, it is the case of the complainant that, handling the said

musical instrument Naathaswaram in such a cavalier manner damages the

mindset of Isaivellalar Community all over the world. It is the further

contention of the complainant that the musical instrument Naathaswaram is

used by the Community for their livelihood and they also cherish the value

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

of the instrument as a whole with all reverence and the people of Isaivellalar

Community treat the said musical instrument Naathaswaram as a divine

instrument given to their Community and the instrument is being used in a

very respectful manner by the people of their Community. Hence, it is the

contention of the complainant that, handling of the instrument in such a

cavalier manner in a TV show, has caused imputation and lowered the

reputation of the entire Isaivellalar Community. Therefore, the complainant

has initiated prosecution as against the accused for defamation.

4.The petitioners before this Court are A1 and A4. Based on the

above complaint, summons have been issued.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended

that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and there is no

material in the complaint to show that the petitioners have intended to cause

imputation, harming any person or community. Except stating that the

instrument was handled in a very cavalier manner, no other allegations have

been made as against the petitioners for causing imputation, which harmed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

the reputation of the Community in general. Therefore, it is their contention

that, handling the instrument itself is not an imputation to lower the

reputation of anyone. They further contended that, no harm whatsoever has

been made to any identifiable group or person. The learned Senior Counsel

further contended that, though the instrument might have been used by the

Community predominantly, it cannot be said that the instrument absolutely

belongs to the particular Community. In any event, the entire allegations in

the complaint, when taken on its face value, would not constitute any

offence of defamation. In support of their contentions, the learned Senior

Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court :

i. S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another [(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299]

ii. G.Narasimhan and others v. T.V.Chokkappa [AIR 1972 SC 2609]

The learned Senior Counsel concluded their arguments by stating that the

entire complaint is devoid of materials to attract the offence of defamation

and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

6.There is no representation on behalf of the de facto complainant,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

despite his name being printed in the cause list.

7.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and

also perused the entire materials available on record.

8.The crux of the allegations made in the complaint are as follows :

“6.The complainant submits that the above said BIGG BOSS telecasted on 14.7.2017 in the Vijay TV, the 3rd accused was acting as a Nadasvaram (Nagasvaram) Vidwan holding the Nadasvaram and dancing with Nadasvaram and also throwing the Nadasvaram from one hand to the other in a very cavalier manner. Thereafter the Nadasvaram was kept on the dining table an the participants were sitting and having their food items. All these things has insulted and damaged the mindset of Isai Vellalar community all over the word.” The above allegations are said to be the defamatory statements, which

lowered the reputation of the Isaivellalar Community.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

9.It is relevant to extract the definition of defamation under Section

499 IPC :

“499. Defamation — Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1 — It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 —It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3 —An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4 —No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”

10.To attract an offence of defamation, there must be statement(s) or

words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible

representations, which makes or publishes any imputation concerning any

person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such

imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. Though Explanation

(2) indicates that the imputation concerning a company or an association or

collection of persons would also amount to defamation, the statements in

the present complaint, alleged to be the defamatory statements referred

above, indicate that there was no intent or motive whatsoever to cause harm

to any person or community. The only grievance of the complainant is that

the instrument was handled in a very cavalier manner and the actors were

sitting around and the instrument was kept in the dining table and the actors

were having food at the relevant point of time.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

11.This Court is of the view that, mere handling of an instrument by a

person in a cavalier manner, cannot be construed as an act causing

imputation with an intention to lower the reputation of any person or

Community. It is to be noted that, merely because the said instrument was

predominantly used by a particular community, non-handling of such

instrument by some others with the same spirit as the community handles

the instrument, cannot be called as an act causing defamation to lower the

reputation of that particular community. Moreover, the statements made in

the complaint would also indicate that they are not targeted against any

person or community.

12.The only allegation is that the instrument was handled in a cavalier

manner as stated above. Handling of an instrument may differ from one

person to another. Some may be experts in handling the instrument and

some may not be. Therefore, mere handling of a particular instrument by a

person in a cavalier manner, who is not an expert in handling such

instrument, cannot be construed to be a defamation, which lowers the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

reputation of a particular community. If such an interpretation is given or

accepted, there is no end for filing such type of complaints for every

instrument. Handling of an instrument always depends upon a person's

skills, etc. Therefore, when a person is said to have not handled an

instrument properly, merely because such instrument was predominantly

used by one particular community, at no stretch of imagination it can be said

that such handling had caused imputation to lower the reputation of that

particular community.

13.In this regard, it is also useful to refer to the judgments relied upon

by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners :

In G.Narasimhan and others v. T.V.Chokkappa (supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held as follows :

“7.It may be recalled that though the complaint alleged that the impugned news item contained imputations against the sponsors of the said resolution, no such imputations, either against the respondent or the sponsors of the resolution, are to be found therein. A perusal of the news items shows that it concerned itself with the protest demonstration against the procession taken, out on that occasion and the tableau

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

presented in the procession, the resolution in question passed at the conference held there after and the fact of the said E.V.Ramaswami Naicker having presided over that conference.

The news item, thus, did not mention either the respondent or any of the alleged sponsors of the said resolution either by name or otherwise.”

14.In S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held as follows :

“37.It may be reiterated here that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 Cr.P.C mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. This limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate's Courts. There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than those who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings.

However, in given facts of the present case, we are unable to see how the complainants can be properly described as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017

'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. As explained earlier, there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant's remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people.”

15.Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above judgments, as the

statements averred in the complaint do not target against any individual or

group of persons or community or readily identifiable group of people,

when such allegations are pressed into service, it will not attract the offence

of defamation under Section 499 IPC.

16.In the light of the narrative supra, this Court is of the view that,

continuance of prosecution based on the present complaint is a futile

exercise and abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to

quash the entire complaint.

17.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.7625 of 2017 on the file

of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Allikulam, is quashed in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.22759 and 22778 of 2017