Madras High Court
Aarur Senthamilan vs The Public Prosecutor on 3 March, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 03.03.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 31.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14249 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9500 & 9501 of 2017
Aarur Senthamilan ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The Public Prosecutor,
Public Prosecutor Office,
District Court Building,
Dindigul District. Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertains to C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the District and
Sessions Court, Dindigul and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saranga
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the District and Sessions
Court, Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
2. Brief facts of the case:-
The respondent, namely, the Public Prosecutor, Madurai District,
filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein, before the Trial Court
with the following facts;-
During the relevant time, Selvi.Dr.J.Jeyalalithaa, was the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and because of her service, she was held in
High esteem by the Society and by that, she attained a high reputation,
popularity and good name. The petitioner herein, made a public speech on
25.01.2014 at Dindigul Municipal Corporation Office, and during that
speech, the speaker touched the administration of the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamilnadu and criticised the personal character of the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The speech was made by him in the capacity
of Students Wing Secretary of Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK Party).
which are per se defamatory and mischievous, which is an offence as
defined under Section 499 IPC. The speech was made by him not in good
faith, but, with an intention to tarnish the good image of the then Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Tamilnadu.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
3. Sanction for the prosecution was obtained as per the provision of
Section 199 (4) Cr.P.C as per the Government Order in G.O.M.S.No.469
Public (Law & Order-H) Department, dated 16.06.2014. The complainant is
empowered to file a complaint on behalf of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister
of Tamilnadu and so, the petitioner is liable to be punished under Section
500 IPC.
4. For quashing the complaint, the accused filed a petition before the
Trial Court, mainly on the ground that the Public Prosecutor is not
competent to file a private complaint on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamilnadu. Moreover, the speech made by the petitioner is not
defamatory in nature in connection with the discharge of public function by
the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The entire speech is only with regard to the
personal act of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and not with reference to the
discharge of any public function. Moreover, as per Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C,
the learned Public Prosecutor can file a complaint for defamation only if it
is in connection with the discharge of function of a public servant in
connection with the affairs of the State. Complaint has been filed out of
political vendetta and it is abuse of process of the Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
5. Heard both sides.
6. The petitioner would heavily rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in K.K.Misra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh CTJ
2018 SC 391 for the purpose of argument that as per the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Section 199 (2) Cr.PC
can be invoked only in connection with the defamation committed against a
public servant and Constitutional functionaries only in respect of acts or
conduct in the discharge of public functions.
7. In a similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a
judgment rendered in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.22263 and 22300 of 2013 dated
18.06.2018 in the case of VPR.Ilamparuthi Vs Public Prosecutor,
Tirunelveli has discussed the matter and has concluded that the Public
Prosecutor can file a private complaint under Section 199 (4) Cr.P.C only in
cases where defamatory speeches or defamation are made in connection
with discharge of public function either by the public servant or by the State
functionary. In that case also, the speaker of opposite party, namely,
Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK Party) made a public speech against the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
then Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. After going through the text of the
speech made by the petitioner, the Court came to the conclusion that even
though, the speech are per se defamatory over the personal character of
Hon'ble the then Chief Minister of Taminadu, there is nothing in that speech
to defame the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu over her discharge
of public function. According to the petitioner, the said decision is squarely
applicable to this case and so, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
8. In the complaint, the relevant portion of the text of the speech
delivered by the petitioner on 25.01.2014 is also extracted. Reading of the
text of the speech shows that it is not in good taste. It is against the private
life of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. But, the utterances
made, the tone and tenor and the intention by which, those speech was
delivered clearly shows that it is not in connection with the conduct of the
then Hon'ble Chief Minister over her discharge of function in the capacity
of the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The speeches are in connection with her
private life and her action with regard to the political function. So, it cannot
be equated with that of the discharge of any public function by a public
servant or State functionary.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
9. Observation in the above said judgments, if at all a private
complaint ought to have been filed only by the affected party, namely the
then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, Selvi.Dr.J.Jeyalalithaa, the office
of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be utilised for this purpose. So, the
sanction in G.O.M.S.No.469 Public (Law & Order-H) Department,
dated 16.06.2014, is also not in accordance with law as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment reported in K.K.Misra Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh CTJ 2018 391.
10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be allowed
and accordingly, the same is allowed. C.C.No.3 of 2014, pending on the file
of the District and Sessions Court, Dindigul is quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.3.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
To
The District and Sessions Court,
Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14249 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9500 & 9501 of 2017
31.3.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
