Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs City Public Prosecutor on 26 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.3684 of 2021
and
CRl.MP.Nos.2193 & 2195 of 2021
1.R.Kannan
2.S.Madhavan ..Petitioners
.Vs.
City Public Prosecutor
High Court Campus,
Chennai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records in respect of
C.C.No.12 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners/accused.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash
the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for an offence
punishable under Section 500, 501 and 501 r/w 109 IPC.
2.The complaint has been filed through the City Public
Prosecutor under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C., r/w the relevant
Government Orders.
3.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
http://www.judis.nic.in
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.
4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
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.
5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made on either side and the materials available on record.
6.The defamatory statements that were relied upon
from the news item published by the magazine has been extracted
http://www.judis.nic.in
in the complaint and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted
hereunder: ?
Mtpd; epWtdk; mjpf mst[ghiy
bfhs;Kjy; bra;jhy;. kjpg;g[ Tl;lg;gl;l ghy;
bghUl;fis mjpfk; cw;gj;jp bra;jpUf;fyhk;/
mjd; K:yk; tpw;gid. Vw;Wkjp ,uz;ila[k;
mjpfhpj;jpUf;f Koa[k;/ Mdhy;.
mbjy;;yhk; ele;jhy; MtpDf;Fj; jhnd yhgk;/
MSk; fl;rpapdUf;F vd;d fpilf;Fk; vd
epidj;jpUg;ghh;ngy ghy; tsj;Jiw mikr;rh;
ukzh/ mjdhy;. 'btz;ikg; g[ul;rp' iaf; fz;L
bfhs;shky; Mtpid 'mikjpg; g[ul;rp' iaf;
fz;L bfhs;shky; Mtpid 'mikjpg; g[ul;rp'
apy; MH;j;jptpl;lhh;/
,jdhy; nfhof;fzf;fhd kf;fs;
ghjpf;fg;gl;lhy;. ,th;fSf;F vd;d tpah;j;jh
tofpwJ ?
7.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.
http://www.judis.nic.in 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.
8.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 seen that this complaint is pending from
the year 2012 onwards without any progress. No useful purpose
will be served by keeping this complaint pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2016, on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is
quashed.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes
KP
http://www.judis.nic.in
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.City Public Prosecutor
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
KP
CRL.O.P.No.3684 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
