Karur Murali vs The Public Prosecutor
2021 Latest Caselaw 12409 Mad

                                                                 CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 25.06.2021

                                                     CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                       CRL.O.P.Nos.9795 and 9796 of 2015
                                                      and
                                            MP.No.1 of 2015 (2 Nos)

                      Karur Murali                                     ..Petitioner in
                                                                       both the Crl.O.P's.

                                                          .Vs.

                      The Public Prosecutor
                      Thiruvallur District
                      Representing the
                      Government of Tamil Nadu                         ...Respondent in

both the Crl.O.P's.

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.Nos.2 of 2013 and 6 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and quash the same. In both the Crl.O.P's.:

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan

For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Counsel for Government (Crl.side)

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

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. 2 of 2013 and 6

of 2014 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Thiruvallur.

2. The complaints have 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 complaints 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

District Public Prosecutor and it does not satisfy the requirements http://www.judis.nic.in

CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

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 counsel for the Government

(Crl.Side) 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

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

made on either side and the materials available on record.

6. 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 counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the

judgments mentioned supra.

7. 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,

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

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.

8. In the result, this Court has absolutely no

hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.2 and 6 of 2013,

on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, and

accordingly, the same is quashed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are

allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are

closed.

25.06.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Jer V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,

Jer http://www.judis.nic.in

CRL.O.P.No.9795 and 9796 of 2015

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor Thiruvallur District.

CRL.O.P.Nos.9795 and 9796 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 (2 Nos)

25.06.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in