Madras High Court
N.Thamarai Bharathi @ ... vs Public Prosecutor on 3 March, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:03.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.155 and 156 of 2020
N.Thamarai Bharathi @ Athisundarapandian
... Petitioner/2nd Accused
Vs.
Public Prosecutor,
Madurai District,
Office of Public Prosecutor,
District Court Buildings,
Madurai,
(Representing on behalf of the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu)
... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records relating to the impugned complaint of the respondent in
C.C.No.04 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Court, Madurai,
quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janakiramulu,
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thirvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
private complaint filed against the petitioner for the offence under
Section 500 I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegation in the complaint indicates that the
petitioner in a public speech has made certain defamatory statements
against the then Chief Minister thereby caused damage to the reputation
in the eye of the society. Hence, he sought to be prosecuted.
3. The transcribed version of the speech of the petitioner is
spanning around ten pages. From a cursory perusal of the same, it is
seen that statements have been made opposing the Ruling Party, except
few sentences, which have also targeted the then Chief Minister in
personal capacity has no nexus with the discharge of official duty. No
statements have been made to attract the filing of the private complaint
by exercising the power under Section 199 Cr.P.C. All the statements in
his public meeting is targeted against the action of the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
Some statements have been personally made against the then Chief
Minister. Therefore, the general statements questioning the action of the
State cannot be construed as defamation of the individual. Further, the
statements made in the individual capacity against the then Chief
Minister have no nexus with the discharging of official duty. In this
regard, this Court in M.K.Stalin vs. City Public Prosecutor (2020 0
Supreme(Mad) 1231), has held as follows:
“9. It is also to be noted that in a catena of
judgments reported in[(2015)8 SCC 239 R A J D EE P S A R D E S A I VS.
ST A T E OF AND H R A P R A D E S H AN D OTHER S] and[1993 Supp (1)
SCC 499, the Apex Court held that judicial process should not
be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In
PEP S I FOODS LIM I TED VS. SPEC I A L JUDIC I A L
M AG I S T R A T E REPO R TED IN (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be
set into motion as a matter of course. The so called
imputation allegedly made should have reasonable nexus
with discharge of public duties. Therefore, mere criticism
without any intent on the part of the petitioner and/or
without any nexus with discharge of public duties will not
come under the purview of offence punishable under Sec.500
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
of I.P.C.
....
11. In a judgment reported in (2018)6 SCC 676 [K.K.M I S H R A
VS.THE ST A T E OF M A D HY A P A DE S H AND OTHER S the Apex
Court held that the alleged statements have no reasonable
nexus with the discharge of public duties by or office of the
Chief Minister. Such statements may be defamatory but in
absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of
public duties or office of the Chief Minister, remedy under
section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. will not be available. It is
the remedy saved by the provisions of subsection (6) of
section 199 Cr.P.C. i.e. a complaint by the Chief minister
before the ordinary court i.e. the court of a Magistrate
which would be available and could have been resorted to.
....
13. Similarly in KART A R S I NGH VS. ST A T E OF
PUNJ A B reported IN A.I. R. 1956 SC 541 wherein the Apex
Court held that vulgar abuses made against the Transport
Minister and the Chief Minister will not amount to
defamation of the State but may amount only to the
defamation of the public functionaries concerned and
therefore, they are only personal in nature. The facts of that
case are that the accused was charged under section 9 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
Punjab security of the State Act, 1953 for making vulgar
abuses against the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister. The Hon’ble Supreme Court even though finding
that the accused statements amounted to defamation against
the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister however held
that the vulgar abuses do not undermine the security of the
state or friendly relations with foreign states nor did they
amount to contempt of court or defamation prejudicial to
overthrow the state. The Apex court held that the slogans
were certainly defamatory of the Transport Minister and the
Chief Minister, but the redress of that grievance was
personal to these individuals and the state authorities could
not take the cudgels on their behalf.
...
16. To take cognizance of the complaint under
Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., the so called defamation should
be directly attributed to a person in discharge of his/her
public functions and only in such circumstances, Sub
Section 2 of Section 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure will
stand attracted. If the said imputation apparently made
against the pubic functionaries, in discharge of his/her
public function, have no reasonable nexus with the
discharge of public duties, the remedy available under
Section 199(6) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate by making
private complaint,and remedy under Section 199(2) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
199(4) will not be available. Otherwise, if any criticism or
defamation in the nature of personal capacity and such
defamation have no nexus with discharge of his/her official
function of the State, complaint cannot be made by a Public
Prosecutor merely on the basis of G.O.
4. Applying the above position of law, the entire general
statements sought to be used as a defamation, do not fall within the
ambit of defamation.
5. Accordingly, Criminal Original petition is allowed and the
private complaint filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.4 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai, is quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pm
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
1.The I Additional District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
pm
Crl.O.P(MD)No.452 of 2020
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
