Madras High Court
Siva. Chellapandiyan vs The District Public Prosecutor on 21 June, 2021
1 Crl.OP No. 13509 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.Nos. 13509 and 13510 of 2016
and
CRl.MP.Nos. 6944 and 6945 of 2016
Siva. Chellapandiyan ..Petitioner
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
Versus
The District Public Prosecutor
Vellore District,
Vellore. ...Respondent
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.13509 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records
in C.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Vellore and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.13510 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records
in C.C.No.1 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Vellore and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.OP No. 13509 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Sankarasubbu
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
For Respondent : Mr.E.Rajthilak
(in both Crl.O.Ps) Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
--
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for an offence punishable
under Section 500 of IPC in C.C.Nos.1 & 3 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.
2. The complaint has been filed through the District Public
Prosecutor under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C., r/w the relevant Government
Orders.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
District 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.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has 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 petitioner in the name of freedom of
press cannot make such defamatory and derogatory allegations against the
former Chief Minister and the petitioner will have to necessarily face the
trial before the Court below and prove his innocence.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6. 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: The police are
government rowdies who have come to suppress the
people......Two DSPs and 200 PCs were watching the
spectacle with folded arms, (Ottu porukki parpanathi)
the vote-picker Brahmin Jayalalitha was also
watching this.....The vote-picker Jayalalitha has not
visited the affected people in Dharmapuri. Will
people be protected by such parpanathi Jayalalitha? If
the names of caste-fanatics are sharpened for use
against suppressed people. Will there be protection in
the regime of Jayalalitha? The persons of Jayalalitha's
Aryaparpana gong should be uprooted.
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
counsel for the petitioner 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
District 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 2013 onwards without any progress. No useful
purpose will be served by keeping this complaint pending.
9. In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to
quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.1 & 3 of 2013, on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and accordingly, the same is
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Msm
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Msm
CRL.O.P.Nos. 13509 and 13510 of 2016
and
CRl.MP.Nos. 6944 and 6945 of 2016
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
