Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs The City Public Prosecutor on 5 March, 2021
1 Crl.OP No.4100 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.4100 of 2021
and CRl.MP.Nos.2605 & 2606 of 2021
1.R.Kannan
Editor & Publisher,
Ananda-Vikatan
2.S.Madhavan
Printer,
Ananda-Vikatan ..Petitioners
.Vs.
The 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.17 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 (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners for an offence punishable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 in the complaint
and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: "
In the Cover Page as: "ke;jphp je;jphp" and in the
page No.79 to 81 page as "ke;jphp je;jphp"
b$ayypjhtpd; tsh;g;g[ kfd; tp/vd;/Rjhfudpd;
epjpepiyfis ftdpj;J te;j K:h;j;jp vd;gth;jhd;
rz;KfehjDf;F vy;yhnk. jd;idr; re;jpf;f tUgth;fsplk;
K:h;j;jp mz;zidg; ghU';f vd rz;Kfehjd; if ePl;Lfpwhh;/
xd;gjhtJ tFg;igj; bjhl';fp rfy r';fjpfisa[k; K:h;j;jpjhd;
ghh;j;Jf; bfhs;fpwhh;/ mikr;rhpd; epHyhfr; bray;gLk;
K:h;j;jpf;F J}j;Jf;Flpapy; bry;thf;F mjpfk;/ mtUf;F
beUf;fkhd xg;ge;jjhuh; xUth;jhd; bjw;nf cs;s Ie;J
khtl;l';fspy; fhd;l;uhf;l; vLj;J nfhnyhr;rpf;bfhz;lpUf;fpwhh;/
me;j tut[ bryt[fspy; fzprkhd g';F Kf;fpakhdth;fSf;Fk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
nghfpwjhk;/ mikr;rnuhL nghl;lpnghLk; mst[f;nf K:h;j;jpapd;
tsh;r;rp ,Ug;gijg; ghh;j;J tha; gpsf;fpwhh;fs; uj;jj;jpd;
uj;j';fs;/
mg;nghija Kjy;th; X/gz;zPh;bry;tj;jpd; glk;
,lk; bgw;Wtplhky;. b$ayypjhtpd; glnk ,lk; gplpf;f ntz;Lk;
vd;gjpy; mf;fiwahfr; bray;gl;lhh;. mikr;rhpd; vz;zk;
vy;yhk; jkpH;ehl;Lf;Fr; Rw;Wyh tUk; me;epah;fis jpUg;gLj;j
ntz;Lk; vd;gJ ,y;iy. mk;khtpd; kdk; nfhzhky; ,Uf;f
ntz;Lk; vd;gnj!
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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.17 of 2016, on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is quashed.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ssr
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2. The City Public Prosecutor
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
ssr
CRL.O.P.No.4100 of 2021
and CRl.MP.Nos.2605 & 2606 of 2021
05.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
