Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs B.Pitchai on 5 February, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 05.02.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3754 of 2017
Balamurugan ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
B.Pitchai ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.26 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Azagarsami
For Respondent : Mr.S.Bharathi Kannan
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.26 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Manamadurai.
2. The facts of the case is that the respondent herein, is working as a
Highway Worker at Manamadurai, and the marriage between the petitioner
herein and one Chithra Selvi was soleminzed on 26.05.2003 at Justice
Krishnan Iyar Thirumana Mandapam, Madurai and they have two famale
children. On 07.06.2015, the respondent along with his family members
went to the petitioner's house, the said Chithra Selvi showed the copy of the
divorce petition field by the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.485 of 2015 before
the learned Family Court, Chennai, contending the defamatory sentence
against the respondent that the said Chithra Selvi is living with the
respondent herein happily. Originally, the respondent is living with his wife
and three children. The petitioner filed that petition with an intention to
harm the reputation of the respondent. So, the respondent herein, filed a
private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Sections 499, r/w 500 and 501 of IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
Manamadurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.26 of 2017.
Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The main ground on which this petition is filed, is that, the
averments made by him in the petition, filed for divorce has been
misrepresented or misquoted. He meant that the word happy is not imputing
allegations against the respondent. But, it was averred only with an
intention to give a meaning that the wife of the petitioner is very much
disconnected with the petitioner and very much connected with the
respondent and so, he never intended to spoil the dignity of either his wife
or the respondent.
4. According to him, he never intended to harm the reputation of
either the respondent or his wife. But, the fact remains that he made some
imputations against his wife and in that connection he stated that when the
wife was leaving the house, she stated that she is not happy with the
petitioner, but with the respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
5. According to the respondent, the said statement, amounts to
defamation and harm his reputation. The fact, the intention of the petitioner
is not to harm the reputation of the respondent and his wife but an attempt to
get divorce, is a matter for consideration on facts and through evidence. The
petitioner, if at all can claim exception under 500 IPC, which is mentioned
in 8th exception. As per exception, good faith must be proved by the
accused, namely, the petitioner herein. It is a basic and settled provision of
law that any imputation made in the pleading filed before the Court is not an
absolute privileged statement. In cases, where imputations have been made
against others, burden will be on the accused, to prove, that he acted in good
faith.
6. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in
Sewakran Vs. R.K.Karanjia (1981) 3 SC 208 question of good faith is a
question of fact and it has to be decided in the course of trial and at the
initial stage, even the journalist do not enjoy any special privilege. What is
good faith defined under Section 52 of IPC reads as under:-
“ Nothing is said to be done or believed in good
faith, which is done or believed without due care and
attention”
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
7. The petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in
Crl.OP(MD)No.371 of 2018, dated 26.09.2019 argued that any statement
made in pleadings will not amount to defamation. But, that case is standing
entirely on different footing than that of this case. The averments that have
been made in the pleadings according to the judgment never attracted the
ingredients mentioned in Section 499 of IPC. But, here, we are dealing with
the different set of facts involving matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and his wife and the petitioner filed a divorce petition against the
wife making some imputations, not only against the wife, but, also the
respondent herein. So, that judgment, will not be helping the case of the
petitioner. So, I do not rely upon this judgment for the purpose of deciding
this petition even at this initial stage itself.
8. Whether the petitioner has acted as due care and attention is also a
question of fact that got to be decided during the course of trial. Even
though, the petitioner says that he never intended to harm the reputation of
the respondent, I am of the considered view that the same can be decided
only during the course of trial. So, this is not a fit case to quash the criminal
proceedings.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Since the
matter is of the year 2015, the Trial Court is directed to make an endeavour
to complete the trial proceedings within 5 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
....03.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Manamadurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5336 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3754 of 2017
04.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
