Madras High Court
Natarajan vs S.Logambal on 22 February, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 22.02.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 23.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9685 & 9686 of 2017
1.Natarajan
2.R.Vijaylakshmi
3.R.Balakrishnan
4.R.Dhanalakshmi
5.R.Bhakiyalakshmi
6.R.Selvarajan
7.R.Dhanarajan ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
S.Logambal ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.420 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and quash the private
complaint and consequential further proceedings.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Elanchezhian
For Respondent : Mr.R.J.Karthick
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in
C.C.No.420 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tirunelveli.
2. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court:-
A civil suit was filed by the husband of the respondent by name
Sundarampillai in O.S.No.34 of 2015 before the Principal Sub Court,
Palakkad, against these petitioners and two others. The petitioners and the
above said Sundarampillai are brothers and sisters. The petitioners have
contested the suit and it is pending for adjudication.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein filed a
private complaint in C.C.No.420 of 2015 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, against these petitioners on the ground that in
the counter statement filed by these petitioners in I.A.No.415 of 2015 in
O.S.No.34 of 2015 as mentioned supra, made defamatory statement against
her. According to her, the following averments are counter in defamatory in
nature;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
“Lokambal married Sundaram Pillai within the
year of after the demise of the father of Sundaram Pillai
that is the petitioner's/complainant's father-in-law. And
also stated that the petitioner lived with the said
Sundaram Pillai before their marriage as husband and
wife. And they also stated that the petitioner has married
her brother itself.”
4. On knowing about these contents of the counter affidavit filed by
these petitioners by the relatives and friends, they enquired her about the
marriage affairs and because of this, she suffered physically and mentally.
5.But, whereas, in the counter, it has been stated by these petitioners,
which is extracted hereunder:-
“Within one year of the death of the father, the
plaintiff married his mother's sister's daughter against
the interest of the family and because of that he was not
having good relationship with the plaintiff.”
6. The private complaint was taken on file and summons were issued
to these petitioners by the Trial Court. Seeking quashment of the private
complaint, this petition is filed, mainly on the ground that what has been
stated in the counter, was not correctly translated by the respondent in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
complaint. The entire pleadings are in Malayam and the respondent had
translated the same, into English and added some statements to suit her
convenience, which shows vast difference between the translated version of
the statement filed by the petitioners in the counter, from that of the actual
averments made in the counter. So, on this ground, they seek quashment of
the private complaint.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The petitioners filed a written argument, reproducing the same
grounds, that have been mentioned in the petition.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon
the judgments reported in K.L.Dhall Vs B.P.Dutta 1985 (1) Crimes 848
and M.C.Chaturvedi Vs R.K.Chaturvedi 43 (1991) DLT 367, for the
purpose of argument that even though the averments are made in the
pending proceedings, there is no bar for the Magistrate to take cognizance
of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. According to him, the
counter affidavit in the Court proceedings itself will amount to publication
and so, the offence under Section 499 IPC is attracted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
10. Even at that time, when the learned counsel for the petitioners
argued before this Court, this Court asked the question to the parties
whether the translated version of the statement alleged to have been
made by the parties in O.S.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Palakkad, was duly certified by a duly qualified translator. But,
the parties are not in a position to inform the Court, about the correctness of
the translation. Moreover, the parties had also not filed the certified
translated copy of the statement by the qualified persons either before the
Trial Court or before this Court. So, this Court is in a handicapped position
to know what was the exact words or sentence used by these petitioners in
the counter filed by them before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad in
I.A.No.415 of 2015 in O.S.No.34 of 2015. So, without expressing any
opinion on this point, this petition has to be considered on merits.
11. Moreover, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the alleged
defamative statements alleged to have been made by these petitioners in the
counter statements and that got to be decided only by the Trial Court during
the trial proceedings. So, on this point also, this Court is not expressing any
opinion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
12. The only point that has been alleged by these petitioners, is that
the private complaint came to be filed, only due to the defamative
translation of the statement made by these petitioners in the counter
affidavit filed in the above said Interlocutory Application. Again, this is a
matter for consideration by the Trial Court. Simply because, the respondent
has not produced translation by a qualified person, the complaint cannot be
quashed, when there is a specific allegation to the effect that her reputation
was damaged by these petitioners. So, on this ground, the petition filed by
the petitioners cannot be entertained.
13. Moreover, in this petition, they have pleaded that what has been
stated by them in the counter affidavit are true to their own belief and
knowledge. When that being so, whether these explanations will come
under any one of the exceptions mentioned in the Section 499 IPC, again is
a matter for trial. Whether the alleged statement made by the petitioners in
the counter affidavit, would attract the ingredients of Section 499 IPC is a
matter for consideration by the Trial Court. Exceptions 9 of 499 IPC reads
as under:-
“Ninth Exception : Imputation made in good faith
by person fro protection of his or other's interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
It is not defamation to make an imputation on the
character of another, provided that the imputation be
made in good faith for the protection of the interests of
the person making it, or of any other person, or for the
public good.”
14. So, when the petitioners say that the statements were made by
them in good faith and true to their own knowledge and belief and then
whether they have acted in good faith or not, is also a question of fact and
that got to be decided by the Trial Court. The term, good faith is also
defined under Section 52 IPC, which runs as under:-
“52. “Good faith”
Nothing is said to be done or believed in
“good faith” which is done or believed without due care
and attention.”
15. So, whether the petitioners have exercised the due care and
attention before making these statements, is also a question of fact and that
got to be decided only during trial.
16. I am of the considered view that no strong case has been made out
of by these petitioners to quash the complaint. So, with this above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
observations, this petition deserves dismissal and accordingly, the same is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17. After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the
petitioners requested the Court to dispose of the matter within a short time
and the first petitioners being the aged persons, he prayed dispense with the
personal appearance of the first petitioner before the Trial Court.
Considering the same, the personal appearance of the first petitioner is
dispensed with and he shall file an affidavit undertaking that he will appear
before the Court as and when necessary and required. He must also affix his
photographs duly attested by his respective counsel in the affidavit.
However, the first petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court shall dispose
the case within 5 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23.3.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
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
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14533 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9685 & 9686 of 2017
23.3.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
