Madras High Court
Sadhurajan vs The Public Prosecutor on 10 March, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 10.03.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED :31.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9271 & 9272 of 2017
Sadhurajan ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai District,
O/o. Public Prosecutor,
District Court Building,
Madurai. ... Respondent/Complainant
(Representing on behalf of the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu)
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertains to C.C.No.25 of 2013 on the file of the 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2013 on the file of the 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
2. Brief facts of the case :-
The respondent, namely, the Public Prosecutor, Madurai District,
filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein, before the Trial Court
with the following facts;-
During the relevant time, Selvi.Dr.J.Jeyalalithaa, was the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and because of her service, she was held in
High esteem by the Society and by that, she attained a high reputation,
popularity and good name. The petitioner herein, made a public speech on
22.05.2013 at Oomachikulam Bus Stand, Madurai and during that speech,
the speaker touched the administration of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of
Tamilnadu and criticised her personal character. The speech was made by
him in the capacity of Head Quarters Speaker of Dravida Munetra
Kazhagam (DMK Party). which are per se defamatory and mischievous,
which is an offence as defined under Section 499 IPC. The speech was
made by him not in good faith, but, with an intention to tarnish the good
image of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The speech made
by the petitioner was taken down by the shorthand writer, attached to the
Police Department and the same, was transcribed in Tamil and the
transcribed text is attached along with the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
3. Sanction for the prosecution was obtained as per the provision of
Section 199 (4) Cr.P.C as per the Government Order in G.O.M.S.No.1228
Public (Law & Order-H) Department, dated 19.10.2013. The complainant is
empowered to file a complaint on behalf of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister
of Tamilnadu and so, the petitioner is liable to be punished under Section
500 IPC.
4. For quashing the complaint, the accused filed a petition before the
Trial Court, mainly on the ground that the Public Prosecutor is not
competent to file a private complaint on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamilnadu. Moreover, the speech made by the petitioner is not
defamatory in nature in connection with the discharge of public function by
the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The entire speech is only with regard to the
personal act of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and not with reference to the
discharge of any public function. Moreover, as per Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C,
the learned Public Prosecutor can file a complaint for defamation only if it
is in connection with the discharge of function of a public servant in
connection with the affairs of the State. Complaint has been filed out of
political vendetta and it is abuse of process of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
5. Heard both sides.
6. The petitioner would heavily rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in K.K.Misra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh CTJ
2018 SC 391 for the purpose of argument that as per the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Section 199 (2) Cr.PC
can be invoked only in connection with the defamation committed against a
public servant and Constitutional functionaries only in respect of acts or
conduct in the discharge of public functions.
7. In a similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a
judgment rendered in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.22263 and 22300 of 2013 dated
18.06.2018 in the case of VPR.Ilamparuthi Vs Public Prosecutor,
Tirunelveli has discussed the matter and has concluded that the Public
Prosecutor can file a private complaint under Section 199 (4) Cr.P.C only in
cases where defamatory speeches or defamation are made in connection
with discharge of public function either by the public servant or by the State
functionary. In that case also, the speaker of opposite party, namely,
Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK Party) made a public speech against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
then Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. After going through the text of the
speech made by the petitioner, the Court came to the conclusion that even
though, the speech are per se defamatory over the personal character of
Hon'ble the then Chief Minister of Taminadu, there is nothing in that speech
to defame the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu over her discharge
of public function. According to the petitioner, the said decision is squarely
applicable to this case and so, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
8. In the complaint, the relevant portion of the text of the speech
delivered by the petitioner on 22.05.2013 is also extracted. Reading of the
text of the speech shows that it is not defamatory in nature. The petitioner
appears to have expressed his grievance over the policy of the Government
and discharge of its public function. The democracy permits dissents and
opposite views. What has been expressed are only the dissents and not
defamatory.
9. Observation in the above said judgments, if at all a private
complaint ought to have been filed only by the affected party, namely the
then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, Selvi.Dr.J.Jeyalalithaa, the office
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be utilised for this purpose. So, the
sanction accorded to the Government in G.O.M.S.No.1228 Public (Law &
Order-H) Department, dated 19.10.2013, is also not in accordance with
law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in
K.K.Misra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh CTJ 2018 391.
10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be allowed
and accordingly, the same is allowed. C.C.No.25 of 2013 pending on the
file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District, is quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.03.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.9271 & 9272 of 2017
31.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
