R.Kannan vs City Public Prosecutor
2021 Latest Caselaw 6038 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6038 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 March, 2021

Madras High Court

R.Kannan vs City Public Prosecutor on 8 March, 2021

                                                              1

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 08.03.2021

                                                         CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                CRL.OP.No.4345 of 2021
                                           and Crl.MP.Nos.2763 & 2765 of 2021
                1. R.Kannan
                2. S.Mahdavan                                                      ...Petitioners

                                                             Vs.
                City Public Prosecutor
                High Court Campus,
                Chennai.                                                              ...Respondent

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
                Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C. No.26 of 2016 on the file
                of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and and quash the
                same.
                                           For Petitioners         : Mr.N.Ramesh

                                           For Respondents : 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

under Section 500 and 501 of IPC.

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

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 (Crl. side)

appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioners

have indulged in making wild allegations against the then Hon'ble Chief https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

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;jpup je;jpup" and in the page No.48 to 54 pages as "ke;jpup je;jpup"

tprhuiz fkprd; mwpf;if tUtjw;F Kd;g[ rl;lkd;wj;jpy; itj;jpyp';fk; ,e;j tptfhuk; gw;wp ngrpdhh;/ jdpahh; fl;olj;jpy; Vw;gLk; rk;gtj;jpw;F muR bghWg;g[ Vw;f KoahJ/ ele;j tpgj;Jf;F muR fhuzk;

my;y/ mJ muR fl;llKk; my;y/ MdhYk; m';F mrk;ghtpj rk;gtk; ele;Jtpl;l fhuzj;jhy; kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; Kjyikr;rh; clnd nehpy; brd;W https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ghh;itapl;lhh; vd;whh;/ mjhthJ Kjyikr;rh; rk;gt

,lj;Jf;F brd;wnj ghf;fpak; vd;gJ nghy nghw;wp g[fH;e;jhh;/ Mdhy; me;jj; Jiwia eph;tfpf;Fk; mikr;rh; tpgj;J ele;j kt[ypthf;fk; Vhpahit vl;of;Tlg;

ghh;f;ftpy;iy/

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 even if 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ requirements of Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C.

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

the proceedings in C.C.No.26 of 2016, on the file of the Principal

Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is quashed.

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

08.03.2021

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rli

1. City Public Prosecutor High Court Campus, Chennai.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai