Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs City Public Prosecutor on 8 March, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
and
Crl. M.P. Nos.2725 & 2723 of 2021
1. R.Kannan
2. S.Madhavan ... Petitioners
Vs.
City Public Prosecutor,
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Call
for the records in respect of CC.No.25 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Chennai and quash the same as against the
petitioners/accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Govt. 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 and 501 of IPC.
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
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 Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioners have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
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 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.46th page as "ke;jpup je;jpup"
mk;kh Ml;rpapy; muR gs;spfs; xd;W Tl
K:lg;gltpy;iy vd rl;lkd;wj;jpy; tPukzp jk;gl;lk;
moj;jhh;/ mikr;rh; brhd;dJ cz;ikah vd v';Fk;
ngha; Mjhuk; njlj; njitapy;iy/ mth; tPlL
; f;f mUfpy;
cs;s nrhyhh;ngl;il tlf;f Muk;g gs;spna kpfr;rpwe;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
cjhuzk;/
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
nrhyhh;ngl;ilapy; muR fiyf;fy;Yhhp mikf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;
vd;gJ me;jg; gFjp kf;fspd; ePz;lehs; nfhhpf;if/ Mdhy;.
mjw;fhf xU br';fy;iyf; Tl mikr;rh; ,Jtiu g[ul;ltpy;iy/
ntYhh; khtl;lj;jpy; Kf;fpar; Rw;Wyh thr!;jykhd Vyfphp
kiyf;F Rw;Wyhg; gazpfis <h;f;f ve;j gzpfSk;
jpll; kplg;gltpy;iy/ glF FHhk; Vyk; tplg;gl;lJ/ Mdhy;. mjpy;
eilbgw;w jpy;YKy;Yfs; jdpf;fij vd;fpd;wdh; cs;S:h; thrpfs;/
Mf. mikr;rh; vd;djhd; bra;J bfhz;L
,Uf;fpwhh;. Rk;kh ,Uj;jny Rfk; vd ,Uf;fpwhnuh
vd;dnth
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
mentioned supra.
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
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
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.25 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
rli
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH ,J.
rli
To
1. The City Public Prosecutor,
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai
Crl.O.P.No.4261 of 2021
and
Crl. M.P. Nos.2725 & 2723 of 2021
08.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
