Madras High Court
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy vs The City Public Prosecutor on 12 July, 2021
1 Crl.OP No.3817 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.No.3817 of 2016
and
Crl.MP.Nos.1947 & 1948 of 2016
1. Dr.R.Krishnamurthy
Editor and Printer,
Dinamalar (RF),
New Standard Press,
T.V.R.House, Medavakkam,
Chennai 600 010
[1st petitioner died on 04.03.2021.
This petition is “dismissed as abated'
in respect of the 1st petitioner as per order
dated 19.04.2021 in Crl OP No.3817 of 2016]
2.Dr.R.Lakshmipathy,
Publisher,
Dinamalar (RF),
New Standard Press,
T.V.R.House, Medavakkam,
Chennai 600 100
..Petitioners/Accused
.Vs.
The City Public Prosecutor
City Civil Buildings,
Chennai.
...Respondent/Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.OP No.3817 of 2016
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records in respect of
C.C.No.6 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners/accused.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Elambharathi
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Counsel for Government
(Crl Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to
quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for an
offence punishable under Section 500, 501 of IPC.
2. During the last hearing, it was informed before
this Court that the 1st petitioner died on 04.03.2021 and therefore,
this Court has “dismissed the petition as abated” insofar the 1st
petitioner is concerned vide order dated 19.04.2021.
3. The complaint has been filed through the City
Public Prosecutor under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C., r/w the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for Government
(Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ "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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai insofar as the 2 nd
petitioner is concerned and accordingly, the same is quashed.
Further, the petitioner's Newspaper are directed to refrain from
printing matters in a disrespectful manner. It has been stated 'J',
when the said person was the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil
Nadu and should have been addressed as Hon'ble Chief Minister
J.Jayalalitha and not as 'J'. While printing and publishing matters
with regard to the leaders of the Country or State, the petitioners
are supposed to give respect and address them accordingly.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rka
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.City Public Prosecutor
High Court Campus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Chennai.
V.BHAVANI SUBBORAYAN.J.,
rka
CRL.O.P.No.3817 of 2016
12.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
