Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

R.Kannan vs The City Public Prosecutor
2021 Latest Caselaw 5856 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5856 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2021

Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs The City Public Prosecutor on 5 March, 2021
                                                               1              Crl.OP No.4233 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.4233 of 2021
                                        and CRl.MP.Nos.2696 & 2697 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.19 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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

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

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

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.24 and 25 page as "ke;jphp je;jphp"

2006?k; Mz;L rl;lrigj; njh;jypy;

nghl;lpapl;lnghJ g{dhl;rpapd; brhj;J kjpg;g[ Rkhh; 15 yl;rk;/ 2011?k; Mz;L njh;jypy; FLk;gj;jpd; bkhj;j brhj;J kjpg;g[ 37 yl;rk;/ kpff; Fiwe;j mst[f;F brhj;J kjpg;g[ itj;j[pUf;Fk; vk;/vy;/V?f;fspy; xUtuhf ,Ue;jhh; g{dhl;rp// ghd; fhh;LTl ,y;iy/ tUkhd thpf; fzf;Fk;

jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ 2007k; Mz;L tiu xU R!^fp https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

nkhl;lhh; igf; kl;Lk; itj;jpUe;jhh; g{dhl;rp/ 2011?k; Mz;L rl;lrigj; njh;jypy; bryt[f;nf fhR ,y;yhky; jtpj;jhh;/ md;iwf;F ghd; fhh;LTl ,y;yhky; rkhspj;jtUf;F. ,g;nghJ ghd; fhh;L th';f ntz;lpa fl;lhak; Vw;gl;lpUf;fpwJ/ mnjhL n$/rp//gp//. yhhpfs;. lpg;gh; yhhp. nl';fh; yhhp. lpuhf;lh; vd mtiu Rw;wp ,Ug;gth;fs; th';fpf; Ftpf;fpwhh;fshk;/ mikr;rhpd; tPLk; gsgsbtd g[Jg;bghypt[ld; jpfH;fpwJ!

jkpH;ehl;lpd; midj;J khtl;;l';fspYk; gl;L tsh;g;g[ eilbgWfpwJ/ Mdhy;. Vd; gw;whf;Fiw epiy ePlpf;fpwJ vd mikr;rh; jhd; brhy;yntz;Lk;/

je;ij bghpahh; gpwe;jhh;//// Jzpt[ gpwe;jJ/ mwp"h; mz;zh gpwe;jhh;. Mw;wy; gpwe;jJ/ g[ul;rpj; jiyth; gpwe;jhh;//// <if gpwe;jJ. mk;kh jh';fs; gpwe;jPh;fs;//// ey;yd vy;yhk; gpwe;jd/ fpuhkh; bjhHpy;fis ,d;W Cf;Ftpj;J tUfpwhh; mk;kh/ ,d;iwa fpuhk kf;fspd; FlpapUe;j nfhapyhfj;; jpfH;fpwhh; mk;kh ? erpe;J bfhz;lpUf;Fk; fpuhkj; bjhHpy;fs; kPJ ftdk; Ftpf;fhj g{dhl;rp “mk;kh”tpd; ftdk; <h;f;f ,g;glp Jjp ghlpf;bfhz;lpUf;fpwhh;!

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

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

N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,

ssr

9.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.19 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.

CRL.O.P.No.4233 of 2021 and CRl.MP.Nos.2696 & 2697 of 2021

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter