S.R.Parthiban vs The District Public Prosecutor
2022 Latest Caselaw 4891 Mad

                                                                               Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 11.03.2022

                                                         CORAM :

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                             Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018
                                                       and
                                        Crl.M.P.Nos.17637 & 17638 of 2018



                S.R.Parthiban                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                The District Public Prosecutor,
                Salem District,
                Salem.                                                          ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
                Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.4 of 2019 on
                the file of the Principal District and Session Judge, Salem and to quash the
                entire proceedings. (Amended as per order in Crl.M.P.No.10793 of 2021 in
                Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018 dated 17.12.2021.)


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan
                                        For Respondent      : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                              Additional Public Prosecutor.




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

                1/8
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018



                                                           ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in

C.C.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Session Judge, Salem

and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the sitting MLA of the Mettur Constituency,

Salem District. The complaint given by the District Public Prosecutor against

the petitioner is that there was a public meeting held near Theevattipatti bus

stand, within the jurisdiction of Theevattipatti Police Station, Salem District,

organized by Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam party on 09.03.2014 and in

that public meeting, the petitioner is one of the main speakers and that on the

same day, the petitioner had addressed the political meeting before the large

gathering and that he delivered a derogatory and defamatory speech against the

Government lead by the then Chief Minister Dr.J.Jayalalitha.

3. Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the alleged speech stated to have been delivered by the

petitioner in a political meeting noway amounts to defamation as against the

then Chief Minister in discharge of her public duties. Even assuming such

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

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

statements may be defamatory, but, then in the absence of the nexus between

the same and the discharge of public duties of the office of the Chief Minister,

the remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) of Cr.P.C., will not be available to

the Chief Minister. At the most, it amounts only to a criticism by a political

opponent and thereby, the petitioner can only be prosecuted under Section 500

of IPC personally by her and not through the Public Prosecutor. Further, the

Tamil Nadu Government by G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 16.06.2014 issued by the

Public (Law & Order-H) department, had accorded sanction to the Respondent

to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 499 IPC, punishable

under Section 500 IPC. Subsequently, the Government, by a later

G.O.Ms.No.556 dated 10.08.2021 issued by the Public (Law & Order-H)

department, had directed withdrawal of prosecutions from the above said case

and also dropped the further action in the above said case. In such

circumstances, the prosecution as against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse

of process of law and thereby he would seek for quashing the proceedings.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

whether the statement delivered during the speech is of the defamative

imputation and whether it caused damage to the public authorities or State or in

personal capacity is a matter for trial and it cannot be decided at this stage in a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

quash petition. However, he would admit that the Government had issued a

G.O.Ms.No.556 dated 10.08.2021, directing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw

the case against the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused

the materials available on record including the transcript of the alleged

defamatory speech.

6. It is contented by the counsel for the petitioner that to constitute an

offence under Section 500 IPC against the Constitutional functionaries or the

Minister or Chief Minister of State, it has to be established by the prosecution

that the alleged imputation made is in respect of the conduct of the public

servant/ public functionary in discharge of his/her public functions and the

public functions stand on a different footing than the private activities of a

public servant. If the statement made appears to be the criticism with regard to

the political activities of a person in personal capacity, the right is guaranteed to

the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further the

complaint can be filed only in the personal capacity before the Court of

Magistrate and state machinery cannot be used to initiate proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in K.K.Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

(2018) 6 SCC 676, where in the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

11. .... Such statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties of the office, the remedy Under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure will not be available. It is the remedy saved by the provisions of Sub- section (6) of Section 199 Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. a complaint by the Hon'ble Chief Minister before the ordinary Court i.e. the Court of Magistrate which would be available and could have been resorted to.

8. Similarly, in Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR

1956 SC 541, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that vulgar abuses made against

the public functionaries 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 Hon'ble Apex Court though

finding that the slogans were certainly defamatory of the public functionaries,

has held that the redress of that grievance was personal to the individuals and

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

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

state machinery cannot be used to initiate the proceedings.

9. This Court, having meticulously perused the transcript of the

speech alleged to have been delivered by the petitioner, is of the considered

opinion that it is only a political criticism on the then Chief Minister in her

personal capacity and by no stretch of imagination, it would amount to

defamation against the then Chief Minister in discharge of her official

functions.

10. As stated above, to take cognizance of the complaint under

Section 199(4)(a) 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, Section 199(4)(a) of Cr.P.C will stand attracted. If the said

imputation apparently made against the public functionaries, has no nexus with

the discharge of public duties, the remedy available under Section 199(6) of

Cr.P.C is only to make private complaint before the regular Magistrate and the

remedy under Section 199(2) and 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 the discharge of official function of public

functionaries of the state, complaint cannot be made by the Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

merely on the basis of Government Order.

11. In view of the foregoing reasons and the decisions cited supra,

and also in view of the subsequent Government Order dated 10.08.2021

directing withdrawal of prosecution this Court is of the opinion that the pending

proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District and

Session Judge, Salem, is only an abuse of process of law and the proceedings

are quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.03.2022 (1/2)

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ham/rgi To

1.The District Public Prosecutor, Salem District, Salem.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

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

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ham/rgi

Crl.O.P.No.30019 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.17637 & 17638 of 2018

11.03.2022 (1/2)

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