Madras High Court
Nazeera Afzal Rahman vs Ms.Preetha Prasad on 18 April, 2023
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Original Petition No.25394 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.13576 & 13578 of 2019
1. Nazeera Afzal Rahman
2. Afzal Rahman ... Petitioners/Accused
Versus
Ms.Preetha Prasad ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records pertaining to
the proceedings in C.C.No.2927 of 2019 on the file of the learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Vigneswar Elango
for M/s.P.Elango
For Respondent : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
complaint for the offences under Section 500 of IPC
2. It is alleged in the complaint that a suit in OS No.5166 of 2016
on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court is pending between the
parties; that in the written statement filed in OS No.5166 of 2016, the
second petitioner had stated that the first petitioner was in intimate
relationship with the respondent owing to the immoral acts/infidelity of
the respondent.; and that the said statement lowered the respondent's
character in the estimation of the others and hence the imputation
amounts to defamation within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
statement made in the pleadings before the Court in good faith cannot be
subject to a prosecution under Section 500 IPC. The petitioners never
intended that the said affidavit be published or read by third parties.
Even according to the statements of the relatives of the respondent the
imputation made in the affidavit was shown to them only by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
respondent. The petitioners never intended to publish it.
4. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in
N.Sathya & another v. V.Sekar, reported in 2009 (3) MWN(Cr.) 266,
wherein this Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the
imputation was not published by the petitioners. The learned counsel
also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
Manoharrao and another v. State of Maharashtra and another,
reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom 3866, wherein the Bombay High
Court had held that statements made in the written statement are
restricted to the parties to the case and the Court, and the said statement
cannot amount to an act of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that
this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the
protection under Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC to statements
made to any public authority is not absolute. The question whether it
has been made in good faith or not is a matter for the Trial Court. The
learned counsel relied upon the following judgments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
(i). Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal, reported in
AIR 1966 Mad 363;
(ii). M.N.Damani V. S.K.Sinha and others, in
Appeal (Crl.) No.596 of 2001 dated 02.05.2001
(iii). Dr.J.Sundarshan v. R.Sankaran, reported in
1992 Crl LJ 2427; and
(iv). M.C.Verghese v. T.J.Ponnan & another,
reported in 1970 AIR 1876.
6. This Court on perusal of the impugned complaint finds that the
imputation has been made in the written statement filed before the Court
in OS No.5166 of 2016. The only point raised by the petitioners is that it
was not intended to be published or spread to third parties, and that the
imputation was made in good faith. This Court finds that after hearing
the submissions of the counsels on either side that the protection for
statements made in the pleadings before the Court is not absolute. The
said statement has to be made in good faith in order to fall within Eighth
Exception to Section 499 of IPC. Whether the statement was made in
good faith or not is a question of fact and it has to be adjudicated only
before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
7. Hence this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned
complaint. However the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the
contentions before the Trial Court. Since it is stated that the second
petitioner is a resident of Calicut, the personal appearance of the second
petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with, unless the Trial Court
deems his presence necessary for the progress of the Trial. As far as the
first petitioner is concerned, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
as withdrawn by the order dated 27.03.2023.
8. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
18.04.2023
jv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
The IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.25394 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
jv
Criminal Original Petition No.25394 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.Nos.13576 & 13578 of 2019
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
