Madras High Court
James Vasanthan vs Radha Venuprasad on 28 January, 2022
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 28.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15116 & 15117 of 2017
James Vasanthan . . . Petitioner
Versus
Radha Venuprasad . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records relating to C.C.No.715 of 2017, pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Sathyamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.V.Ayyadurai
Senior Counsel
Mr.Meiyappan Mohan
for Willson Associates
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private
complaint in C.C.No.715 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur for the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
Page No:1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
2. The respondent/defacto complainant has preferred a complaint under
Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and other accused by
way of separate calendar cases on the allegation that this petitioner along with
other accused had participated in a press meet held on 09.08.2013 making
allegations against the respondent and thereby, her reputation has been spoiled.
For which, the present complaint has been filed for the offence under Sections
499 and 500 of I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not uttered the name of the respondent anywhere and he has
restricted his statement to the extent of his limited knowledge about the dispute
and the act of the respondent. He further submitted that his statements is also
fall within the extent of Ninth Exception of Section 499 of IPC. Therefore, he
prayed to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defacto complainant
submitted that there were serious allegations made by the petitioner which
lowered the reputation of the de facto complainant, the same attracts the offence
Page No:2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. Hence, he opposed to quash the
proceedings.
5. This Court has perused the entire materials available on record.
The allegations in the complaint indicate that the petitioner has made remarks
against the defacto complainant by falsely attributing that the defacto
complainant has called him as "Tamil Patti(Dog)". Besides, the accused has
also referred the husband of the complainant as "henpecked (Kooja). Hence, the
complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant .
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred
Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC, which reads as follows:
“Ninth Exception: Imputation made in good faith by
person for protection of his or other's interest.
It is not defamation to make an imputation on the
character of another, provided that the imputation be made in
good faith for the protection of the interests of the person
Page No:3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
making it, or of any other person, or for the public good”.
7. In view of the Ninth Exception under Section 499 of IPC, it is made
clear that to fall within the said exception, the imputation should be made in
good faith, which is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be gone at this
stage. This Court cannot apply the exception blindly while exercising its power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. When the complaint itself discloses the various
statements said to have been made by the petitioner, it has to be tested only in
the trial Court. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this
petition.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the
petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies,
answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of
Page No:4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court.
28.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
msv
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
msv
Page No:5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017
Crl. O.P. No. 26251 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16699 & 16700 of 2017
28.01.2022
Page No:6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
