Madras High Court
A.R.Murugadoss vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 July, 2021
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL. O.P. NO. 29201 OF 2018
AND
CRL. M.P. NO. 17106 OF 2018
A.R.Murugadoss .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I,
Chennai.
Crime No.509 of 2018
2. G.Devarajan .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for
records in Crime No.509 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and
quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents : Mr. A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side) for R-1
No Appearance for R-2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.509 of
2018 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
2. The present prosecution has been launched at the behest of a private
complaint given by the 2nd respondent, who claims himself to be a social activist,
to the 1st respondent, alleging that the portrayal of a particular scene in the film
“Sarkar” directed by the petitioner, in which visual portrayal of throwing the
freebies, announced by the various Chief Ministers' and distributed by the
Government to the public, especially the poor and downtrodden, in the fire, not
only defamed the Government, but the said act also criticized the Government,
the individuals and the political party, of its policies and, in turn, it incited
violence, which led to law and order problem, thereby unleashing violent acts
against the general public and spoiling the unity among the citizens. It is the case
of the 2nd respondent that various electrical household appliances were given to
the general public as a part of the scheme for use in the household, which was
portrayed in bad light by the petitioner in the aforesaid movie with an intent to
cause violence and unrest among the public, which attracts the offences u/s 153,
153-A (1) (a), 505 (1) (b), 505 (1) (c) of IPC, which led to the registration of the
case by the 1st respondent, on receipt of the complaint, in Crime No.509 of 2018.
3. Right to freedom of expression is one of the basic tenets of our
constitutional setup and it cannot be abrogated in any fashion by the law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
enforcers by resorting to filing of cases, merely because an
act/expression/opinion of a particular individual is not in consonance with the
taste and likes of another individual, unmindful of the fact that freedom of
expression is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and
unless the ingredients of the complaint make out a case for proceeding against an
individual, the law enforcing agency should be circumspect in acting in haste to
register a complaint.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. - Vs - Bhajan Lal &
Ors. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) has postulated the instances, where the Courts,
sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution or u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, could wield its inherent powers to interfere with any action by the
governmental agencies and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the
same is quoted hereunder :-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
5. Mindful of the above postulates of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard
to the parameters that are to be fulfilled, lest which the FIR could be quashed,
learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the above dicta laid down,
submitted that the view expressed by the petitioner are fully his personal views,
which stand squarely covered by Article 19 (1) of the Constitution under the head
“Freedom of Expression” and the same could in no way be termed to be
maligning or defaming the act of the individuals or the Government. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the movie has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
been certified by the Central Board for Film Certification for exhibition and once
the statutory Board grants the requisite certificate, without challenging the
validity of the certificate, imputing imputations against the petitioner that the
portrayal is only for the purpose of creating a law and order situation and
defaming the individuals and the Government for the purpose of inciting
violence, is wholly a myth and not substantiated by any material. Further, the
investigating agency has registered a case under the above provisions of law,
more especially Sections 153 and 153-A (1) (a) IPC, however, the ingredients as
found in the abovesaid sections does not stand fulfilled in the present case and,
therefore, the FIR requires quashment. In support of his submission relating to
the nature of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification,
learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. - Vs - Union of India &
Ors. (2018 (1) SCC 761).
6. Though none appears for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant,
however, a counter has been filed inter alia contending that by visual portrayal,
the petitioner has instigated the viewers to act against the Government by
screening acts, through the hero in the film, which in turn incites the general
public to resort to such violent acts. It is the further averment of the 2 nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
respondent that the products given by the Government, through the various
schemes implemented by it, are meant for the poor common public, who form a
major chunk in the population of Tamil Nadu and the manner in which the visuals
are depicted clearly shows the intent of the petitioner in maligning the name of
the former Chief Minister and also the free schemes implemented in the State of
Tamil Nadu at her instance. It is the further averment of the 2nd respondent that
following the footsteps of the actor, the products received from the government
were thrown into the fire by persons, who have affinity to the actor and the
director/petitioner and such acts have created a grave law and order situation
and, therefore, the sinister motives of the petitioner could be unearthed only if a
proper investigation is carried out and, therefore, vehemently opposed
quashment of the FIR.
7. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
1st respondent submits that freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution
under Article 19 (1) (a) is subject to reasonable restriction and it cannot be used
for the purpose of inciting violence by branding the beneficial acts of the
government as publicity, however, it is to be pointed out that the 1st respondent,
even after a lapse of a period of three years, has not thought it fit to file its
counter and in view of the passage of time and the pendency of the matter, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
Court is constrained to proceed with deciding the case on the basis of the
materials available on record and also on hearing the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 1st respondent.
8. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials
available on record.
9. The right to reputation is an inherent right guaranteed by Article 21 and
hence, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has
to be balanced with the right under Article 21 and cannot prevail over the right
under Article 21 as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Subramanian Swamy – Vs - Union of India (2016 (7) SCC 221). However, in the
present case, though a faint attempt is made through the complaint and the
counter that the act of the petitioner has defamed the individuals and the
Government and, in turn, had incited violence, however, no offence u/s 499 and
500 IPC has been registered against the petitioner by the Government or its
functionaries. Therefore, the right to reputation under Article 21 does not come
in the way of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) and in the
above backdrop, this Court is to only see whether the act of the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
overshot the freedom of expression provided as a constitutional guarantee under
Article 19 (1) (a).
10. The petitioner has been slapped with the offences u/s 153, 153-A (1)
(a), 505 (1) (b), 505 (1) (c) of IPC. For better appreciation of the case, the
relevant provisions are extracted hereunder :-
“Section 153. - Wantonly giving provocation with intent to
cause riot—if rioting be committed—if not committed —
Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is
illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it
to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of
rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be
committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence
of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months, or with
fine, or with both.
153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony —
(1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes
or communities, or
Section 505. - Statements conducing to public mischief —
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement,
rumour or report,—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any
officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of
India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as
such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or
alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any
person may be induced to commit an offence against the State
or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class
or community of persons to commit any offence against any
other class or community;
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.”
11. While Section 153 deals with acts giving rise to provocation with intent
to cause riot, Section 153-A (1) (a) pertains to promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Section 505 deals
with statements conducing to public mischief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
12. Though the FIR has been registered for the afore stated offences,
however, the main crux of the issue is that the film having been certified by the
Central Board of Film Certification, the complaint given by the 2nd respondent is
nothing but an attempt to browbeat the petitioner into submissiveness and to
impose upon him that nothing against the individual manning the Government or
the Government could be expressed. The core of the allegations by the 2nd
respondent is that the scene in the film, in which the freebies given by the
Government were shown as thrown into the fire, had been portrayed only with
an intention to destroy the solidarity and integrity of the nation by maligning and
defaming the individual and the Government. It is not in dispute that the film
directed by the petitioner had been subjected to censorship by the Central Board
of Film Certification and has been issued with a certificate, dated 25.10.2018.
Pursuant to the certification, the film has been released for the viewing of the
general public.
13. It is to be pointed out that the Central Board of Film Certification is a
statutory body, which has been created for the purpose of granting the requisite
certificates for the exhibition of films, upon satisfying itself that the films do not in
any way impede upon the peaceful life of the public, nor it creates any law and
order situation and it is safe and reasonable for viewing by the general public.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
Guidelines in this regard for certification of film has also been framed and the
Board is to act within the contours of the said guidelines. It is to be highlighted
here that the body of persons, who constitute the Central Board of Film
Certification are persons of high repute, who, after viewing and satisfying that the
film is safe for viewing by the normal citizens, grant certificate. Once the
certificate is granted, without challenging the said certificate, no person could
come before the Court and say that any parts portrayed in the film is likely or has
caused a grave situation in which the law and order has been put in peril.
14. In the above background, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
Viacom's case (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, gains
significance and for better appreciation, the relevant of portion is extracted
hereunder :-
“15. For the present, we are considering the prayer for
grant of interim relief i.e., whether the notifications/orders
prohibiting the exhibition of the film should be stayed or
not. The creative content is an insegregable aspect of Article
19(1) of the Constitution. Needless to emphasise, this right
is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures.
Regulatory measures are reflectible from the language
employed under Section 5-B of the Act and the Guidelines
issued by the Central Government. Once the parliamentary
legislation confers the responsibility and the power on a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-
exhibition of the film by the States would be contrary to the
statutory provisions and infringe the fundamental right of
the petitioners. That apart, as we understand at present
from para 27 of the judgment in Prakash Jha Productions
[Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC
372] , it is the duty and obligation of the State to maintain
law and order in the State. We may also note here with
profit that the Guidelines are to be kept in mind by CBFC.
For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the relevant
part of the Guidelines:
“2. In pursuance of the above objectives, the
Central Board of Film Certification shall ensure that—
***
(viii) human sensibilities are not offended by
vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;
***
(x) scenes degrading or denigrating women in any
manner are not presented;
***
(xiii) visuals or words contemptuous of racial,
religious or other groups are not presented;
(xiv) visuals or words which promote communal,
obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitude
are not presented;
***
(xviii) public order is not endangered;”
16. It has to be borne in mind, expression of an idea by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
any one through the medium of cinema which is a public
medium has its own status under the Constitution and the
statute. There is a Censor Board under the Act which allows
grant of certificate for screening of the movies. As we scan
the language of the Act and the Guidelines framed
thereunder, it prohibits use and presentation of visuals or
words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups. Be
that as it may. As advised at present, once the certificate
has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the
authority concerned has taken into account all the
Guidelines including public order.
17. Mr Mehta would urge that grant of an interim order
would tantamount to final expression of an opinion on the
merits of the case. We do not think so. If a substantial
ground is established in law by the States, there may be a
different perception, for we are passing an interim order,
considering the prima facie case and having due regard to
the fundamental conception of right of freedom of speech
and expression.
18. In this regard we may reproduce a passage from an
order of this Court in Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of
Film Certification [Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC, (2018) 1 SCC
778] passed on 16-11-2017: (SCC p. 779, para 5)
“5. Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a
book is a creation of art. An artist has his own
freedom to express himself in a manner which is not
prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by
implication to crucify the rights of the expressive mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
The human history records that there are many
authors who express their thoughts according to the
choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also
create characters who may look absolutely different
than an ordinary man would conceive of. A thought-
provoking film should never mean that it has to be
didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive
and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious
thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any
limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in
law.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not challenged the certificate
issued to the said film by the Central Board of Film Certification. The only
grievance of the petitioner is that the said scenes in the film has maligned and
tarnished the reputation of the individuals and defamed the Government in the
eyes of the general public and, in turn, it has incited violence, which has led to a
grave law and order situation. Further, the complaint proceeds on the premise
that the above film directed by the petitioner, in which, he has attacked the
policies of the Government in giving freebies to the general public has caused a
grave law and order situation, in that the public, in reaction to the scenes in the
film, are replicating the said scenes in general life and, thereby, the life of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
common man is put in danger and peril. Also, the benevolent act of the
Government in providing freebies to the poor and the needy ration card holders is
being castigated and maligned and, thereby, the reputation of the Government is
tarnished and defamed.
16. Though the aforesaid averments are made both in the complaint and
also the counter by the 2nd respondent, however, it is to be pointed out that as on
date, the Government has not filed any complaint against the petitioner in this
regard. Even if the Government had filed any complaint against the petitioner for
inclusion of the above scenes in the film, the same would be in direct
contradistinction to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viacom's
case (supra). The State, as the protector of law and order is bound to maintain
law and order in a peaceful manner and cannot, to the whims and caprice of the
rulers or persons acting at the behest of the rulers, act against persons, like the
petitioner, who is an artists and who has his own freedom to express himself in a
manner which is not prohibited by law and such prohibitions are not read by
implication to crucify the rights of the expressive mind. Putting shackles on the
human mind from expressive thinking not only is in detriment and in derogation
of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) relating to freedom of expression,
but would be in direct conflict with the policies of the State in promoting arts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
culture, be it in the form of visual or print.
17. Further, had there really been offensive visual representation, which
had led to deterioration of law and order, the State would have exercised its
power by taking appropriate action, but the State had not taken any steps to file a
complaint, much less to even a file a counter in the present petition. Therefore, it
could safely be concluded, without a second thought, that the State had no
qualms about the visual depiction and had merely brushed it aside as an
expression of the individual through visual media.
18. Further, anything portrayed in a film is not to be seen in isolation, but
should be seen as a whole to find out whether there is really a mala fide intent on
such visual representation. However, the complaint of the petitioner clearly
shows that scene, in isolation, has been taken out and shown to be offensive, that
too against the individuals and also the policies of the Government. In this
context, reference may be had to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in S.Tamilselvan & Ors. _ Vs – Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2016 (3) LW 577), wherein
the Division Bench, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P. (L)
No.1529 of 2016 dated 16.6.2016 (Phantom films Pvt. Ltd. - Vs – The Central
Board of Film Certification), held as under :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
“139. In this context, reference may be made to the
widespread controversy that arose out of a Hindi film Udta
Punjab, wherein the challenge laid by the producers of the film
to the cuts recommended by the Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC), predominantly aimed at the cuss words
used by the characters in the movie, was sustained by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in W.P. (L) No.1529 of
2016 dated 13.6.2016 (Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. - Vs – The
Central Board of Film Certification) . The film highlighted the
menace of drug abuse among youngsters in the State of
Punjab. Some fictional characters were incorporated into the
film in order to illustrate the unrestricted and unchecked
movement of drugs and in that context, some of them are
shown speaking in a tone and language that may not be
generally associated with a cultured/refined person, and are
often seen swearing at and abusing each other. The Court
observed that it was not to corrupt the viewers minds, but only
to present a realistic account of the issue being depicted that
such scenes were inserted. The Court felt that stray sentences
picked up from a few scenes, particularly dialogues delivered by
the characters, could not be termed as creating a negative
impact by tending to encourage, justify or glamorize the issue
involved. It was observed that the total impact of the work
ought to be assessed and judged, bearing in mind the
underlying theme of the film. The following extract of the
judgment is relevant :-
The human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity,
obscenity or depravity. Such scenes and dialogues have to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
be viewed in totality. The story must be read and
considered in its entirety. It is not safe to select a few
words, sentences, dialogues and scenes and then to
arrive at the conclusion reached by the Board. If the
strata of the society and habituated to indulge freely in
vulgar abuses are shown as indulging in the same
without in the slightest manner glorifying them or their
language, then, we do not see anything objectionable in
the words. Thus, the Court was of the view that a blanket
direction by the CBFC suggesting various cuts relating to
the use of abusive words without reference to the theme
and the subject of the film can be seen as infringing upon
the artistic freedom and creativity of the film-maker. The
Court observed it is important to take note of the spoken
words in their entirety and understand the method of
conveyance of the intended message.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. In fact, in Phantom Films case (supra), relied on by the Division Bench
of this Court in Tamilselvan's case (supra), the Central Board of Film Certification
was itself barred from removing certain words/scenes from the film, which seen
in isolation, were vulgar or obscene. The Court had gone on to hold that the film
must be looked at on the whole and no scene or word should be seen in isolation
to brand it as one which has a tendency to corrupt the minds of the viewers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
20. As already pointed out above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the
decision in Viacom's case (supra), has observed that “the expression of an idea by
any one through the medium of cinema which is a public medium has its own
status under the Constitution and the statute. There is a Censor Board under the
Act which allows grant of certificate for screening of the movies”. In the present
case, the certificate having already been granted by the Central Board of Film
Certification after satisfying itself about the film and the Government also having
no quarrel with regard to the said scene depicted in the film, the complaint of the
2nd respondent is nothing but an attempt to dissuade the citizens from having
their freedom of expression articulated under Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution. If acts such as the one perpetrated by the 2nd respondent is allowed
to continue by not quashing the FIR, it would send wrong signal not only to the
individuals to launch attack on any expressive depiction made as a matter of
creativity by any individual, but also there would be misuse of the law enforcing
agency by unscrupulous persons at the helm of the governmental machinery to
settle scores with any person, who does not dance to the whims and fancies of
the persons in power.
21. The allegations made in the FIR does not even prima facie make out
any offence u/s 153, 153A (1) (a), 505 (1) (b) and 505 (1) (c). Further, it is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
pointed out that scrutiny of any policy of the Government by the public is a right
of every citizen of the country, who have their own opinion on a particular policy.
In the case on hand, the opinion of the petitioner, expressed in the form of visual
depiction in the particular movie, cannot be said to be an act of incitement or
causing uproar amidst the general public, as it is not even the case of the 1st
respondent that pursuant to the release of the film, there were large scale law
and order problem and violence erupted, due to the scene portrayed in the film.
An opinion of one individual may not be acceptable to another individual, but
that would not be a bar for the individual to express his opinion so long as the
same in no way hampers the harmony of the society. If for any contra expression,
which is not to the liking of another individual, which is expressed in the form as
shown in the present movie, which is the subject matter of issue, a complaint
could be entertained, there would be no end to the filing of complaints and that
would spell doom to the falling and failing of the fundamental guarantees
enshrined in the Constitution.
22. It would be apposite to quote the words of the Supreme Court in
S.Rangarajan – Vs – P.Jagjivan Ram & Ors. (1989 (2) SCC 574), as hereunder :-
“However, the producer may project his own message which
the others may not approve of it. But he has a right to “think
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
out” and put the counter-appeals to reason. It is a part of a
democratic give-and-take to which one could complain. The
State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression,
however hateful to its politics. Everyone has a fundamental
right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern.
He can form and inform by any legitimate means. The
democracy is a Government by the people via open discussion.
The democratic form of government itself demands its citizens
an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the
community. The public discussion with people's participation is
a basic feature and a rational process of democracy which
distinguishes it from all other forms of government.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. In the case on hand, the expression of the view of the petitioner,
through the visual medium, would in no way be castigated to be a version, which
was predominantly projected to incite violence amongst the general public and,
thereby, to cause law and order problem and demean and defame the
Government and the individuals at the helm of its affairs. The opinion expressed
by the petitioner in the said movie, is his personal opinion, which squarely gets
guarded under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution so long as it in no way affects
the freedom of reputation of any individual. That not being the case, the FIRs
registered by the 1st respondent in a casual and callous manor is nothing but
spelling doomsday for the entire country, as any such act by the 1 st respondent, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
left to survive, would only stifle the freedom of expression and creativity
envisaged under Article 19 (1) (a), which is not what the makers of our
Constitution had in mind when the holy book was drafted. The personal liberty
cannot be curtailed in a cavalier manner by the police, which has been
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. The present case falls squarely within the four corners of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and the instances
highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashment of a case stand wholly
attracted. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
FIR registered by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent does
not enthuse this Court to continue the same on board of the 1 st respondent and it
deserves quashment, as allowing the same to continue would be nothing but
abdication of the powers clothed on this Court by the Constitution.
25. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed by quashing the
FIR in Crime No.509 of 2018 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rli/GLN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
Chennai.
2 The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli/GLN
CRL. O.P. NO.29201 OF 2018
26.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
