V.Anbazhagan vs The City Public Prosecutor
2021 Latest Caselaw 5575 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5575 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2021

Madras High Court

V.Anbazhagan vs The City Public Prosecutor on 3 March, 2021

                                                          1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 03.03.2021

                                                        CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                              CRL.O.P.No.4584 of 2017
                                                        and
                                          CRl.MP.Nos.3467 & 3468 of 2017


                     V.Anbazhagan                                               ..Petitioner


                                                              .Vs.

                     The City Public Prosecutor
                     O/o. City Public Prosecutor,
                     City Civil Court Buildings,
                     Chennai-600 104.
                                                                             ...Respondent



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records pertaining to the
                     private complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.11 of 2015,
                     on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and
                     quash the same.


                                      For Petitioners   : Mr.S.Kumaradevan

                                      For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
                                                       Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                         2

                                                    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 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 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 Court in K.K.Mishra v. The State of Madhya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

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 Additional Public Prosecutor

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 petitioners 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.

6.The defamatory statements that were relied upon

from the news item published by the magazine has been extracted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

in the complaint and for proper appreciation, the same is

extracted hereunder: ? "

"mikr;rh; tp$agh!;fh; kpul;ly;! lhf;lh; mwpbthsp jw;bfhiy !" in the Tamil Book " I/V!; mjpfhhpfspapd; CHy;; uh$h';fk;.

fhrneha; Jiwapy; cs;s 660 gzpl';fis njh;t[ bra;a[k; mjpfhhp lhf;lh; mwpbthspjhd;. 660 gzpapl';fspy; kUj;Jt mjpfhhp fhrneha; bry; vd;w gzpaplj;Jf;F vk;/gp///gpv!; Koj;Jptl;L.

1.DIPLOMA/MD PUBLIC HEALTH/TUBER CULOSIS & CHEST DISEASES

2.ONE EAR EXPERIENCE IN RNTCP

3.BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTERS ,jpy; mDgtk; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ Rfhjhuj;Jiw mikr;rh; tp$agh!;fh; 14/2/15 lhf;lh; mwpbhspia miHj;J "RNTCP" mDgtk; ,y;yhj lhf;lh; xUtiu Through TOR (Term of Reference) only eligible candidates are called for written examination and interview, if the candidates are not eligible they will be rejected.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

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 petitioners has rightly relied upon the

judgments mentioned supra.

8.The allegations based on which the criminal