Madras High Court
V.Mullaivendhan vs The District Public Prosecutor on 25 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.3170 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2069 of 2019
V.Mullaivendhan
Ex-Minister ... 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.49 of 2018
on the file of the Special Court of Trial for Criminal cases related to elected
members of Parliament and Members of State Legislative Assembly of Tamil
Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathi Raja
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
relating to C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court of Trial for
Criminal cases related to elected members of Parliament and Members of State
Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai and quash
the same.
2. The petitioner was a Minister during 1996-2001. The complaint
given by the District Public Prosecutor against the petitioner is that there was a
demonstration held near Mechery, Salem District within the jurisdiction limit of
Mechery Police Station, Salem, organized by the DMDK party on 30.09.2015
and in that demonstration meeting, the petitioner is alleged to have addressed
the gathering and delivered derogatory and defamatory speech against the
Government lead by the then Chief Minister Dr.J.Jayalalitha.
3. Mr.J.Bharathi Raja, 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. 3170 of 2019
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. However,
based on G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 05.02.2016 issued by the Public (Law &
Order-H) Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu had accorded sanction to
the Respondent to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 499
IPC, punishable under Section 500 IPC. 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
quash petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
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.
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.
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
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
state machinery cannot be used to initiate the proceedings.
9.Now referring to the alleged speech, the petitioner is said to have
made the following imputation:-
“,e;j mk;ikahiug; gw;wp ngRfpnwd;/ Ml;rp mjpfhuj;ij bfhLj;jpUf;fpwhh;fs;
vd;W brhd;dhy;. Mstl;lk; MLfpwhh;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy;. nfL bfl;lth;fs;
me;j ,af;fj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;. CiHg;gtd;. TpRthrkhd bjhz;ld; me;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
,af;fj;jpny ciHf;Fk; bjhz;lDf;F m';nf khpahij ,y;iy vd;W
Fkhpf;bfhz;oUf;fpwhnd. cdf;Fj; bjhpa[kh. nftyk; Tl;Lwt[ ehl;Lah;t[ vd;W
brhy;thh;fs;/ Tl;Lwt[ njh;jiyf;Tl me;j fl;rpf;fhuDf;F bfhLf;fhky; 50.000.
100.000 vd;W gzj;ij bgw;Wf;bfhz;L gpr;ir nghl;LUf;fpwha;. eh';fs; vy;yhk;
mjpfhuj;jpy; ,Ue;jth;fs;. XU ehisf;fhtJ ,g;go ,Ue;jpUf;Fkh. vk;/$p/Mh;
me;j ,af;fj;ij cUthf;fpf; bfhLf;Fk;nghJ bfhl;of; bfhLj;jhnd.
,d;iwf;F mij ,af;fk; vd;W brhy;yf; TlhJ ez;gh;fnsh. mJ xU
fk;bgdp. gpiuntl; ypkpbll; fk;bgdp”
10. 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 as a leader of the party and by no stretch of imagination, it
would amount to defamation against the then Chief Minister in discharge of her
official functions.
11. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
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
merely on the basis of Government Order.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons and the decisions cited supra,
this Court is of the opinion that the pending proceedings in C.C.No.49 of 2018,
on the file of the Special Court of Trial for Criminal cases related to elected
members of Parliament and Members of State Legislative Assembly of Tamil
Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai, is only an abuse of process of law and
the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
vkr/rgm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No. 3170 of 2019
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. 3170 of 2019
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vkr/rgm
Crl.O.P.No.3170 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2069 of 2019
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
