Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs City Public Prosecutor on 1 March, 2021
1 CRL OP.No. 3899 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.3899 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.Nos.2317 and 2318 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, to call for the records in respect of
C.C.NO.15 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 CRL OP.No. 3899 of 2021
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
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
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: "
In the Cover Page as: berthsh;fs;
epiwe;j gFjp gukf;Fo/ m';nf bert[j;
bjhHpYf;nfh my;yJ berthsh;fSf;nfh
Re;juuh$; brhy;ypf;bfhs;Sk; mst[f;F
vija[k; bra;Jtpltpy;iy/ kz;zpd; 'ike;jh;'
Re;juuh$; fhyj;jpYk; bjhlh;e;jJ/
murpd; fl;Lg;ghl;oy; ,Uf;Fk; Tl;Lwt[
ifj;jwpj; bjhHpw;rhiyfspy; etPd
Kiwfs; Vw;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy/ murpd; ,ytr
ntl;ofs; gwpKjy; bra;ag;gl;ld/ ,it
midj;Jk; ,e;jj; jpl;lj;jpd; nkhro tpa{fj;ij
btspr;rkpl;Lf; fhl;od/ mg;nghJ me;jj;
Jiwiaf; ftdpj;j mikr;rhpd; Kfj;ija[k;
nrh;j;Jjhd;/
kUj;Jtuhf ,Ue;jnghJ
http://www.judis.nic.in gugug;ghf ,Ue;j mikr;rh; Re;juuh$;.
,g;nghJ mikr;ruhf vd;djhd;
bra;fpwhh;? 'c';fs; ,Ug;gplnk v';fs;
nfhapy;/ c';fs; g[d;difna v';fs;
gpurhjk;/ c';fs; thh;j;ijfns v';fs; tuk;/
'mk;kh' g[fHhuk;
ghof;bfhz;oUf;fpwhh;/ mJ mtiuf;
fhg;ghw;wyhk;/ Mdhy;. ,is"h; eyidf;
fhf;f KoahJ/
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
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 evenif 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.
9.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2012, on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is
quashed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rka
To
City Public Prosecutor
High Court Campus
Chennai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
Crl.O.P.No.3899 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
01.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
