Madras High Court
K.R.Selvaraj vs S. Raju on 20 July, 2023
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
K.R.Selvaraj ...Appellant
vs.
S. Raju ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated 18.04.2023 made in
C.C.No.163 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
For Appellant : M/s. J.Prithivi
JUDGMENT
The present Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated
18.04.2023 made in C.C.No.163 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
2. The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No.163/2018 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. He filed the said complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 500 IPC.
3. The case of the appellant/complainant in nutshell is as follows:
i. The appellant/complainant and the respondent/accused are
neighbours and are residing in Gounder Colony, Velur Road,
Tiruchengode Town, Namakkal District.
ii. The respondent/accused, installed a statue of Goddess
Samayapurathal in his house and is doing soothsaying business.
He is causing nuisance to the other residents by continuously
ringing electric bells and drums. When this was questioned by the
neighbours, the accused threatened them with dire consequences.
iii. Subsequently, the accused lodged a complaint dated 09.05.2016
(Ex.P1) with the police against the present complainant stating that
the latter is not taking care of his mother, who is bed ridden and
that he is also burning her clothes in front of his house.
iv. On account of this complaint, the police officials came over to the
house of the complainant and enquired him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
v. According to appellant/complainant, the allegations made in the
complaint (Ex.P1) by the accused are totally false and it has been
made with an intention to defame the appellant/complainant before
the public.
vi. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 28.01.2017
(Ex.P14) to the accused calling upon the latter to tender apology
and to pay Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages.
vii.The said notice was received by the accused on 31.01.2017, as is
seen from the acknowledgement card (Ex.P15).
viii.The respondent/accused sent a reply notice dated 06.02.2017
(Ex.P16), which according to the appellant/complainant contained
false allegations.
ix. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/complainant preferred a
private complaint against the respondent/accused.
x. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the private
complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., took the same on file
and recorded the evidence of complainant and his witnesses under
Section 200 Cr.P.C.
xi. Thereafter, she took cognizance of the offence under Section 500
IPC and issued summons to the respondent/accused under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
204 Cr.P.C. The copies of the records were furnished to the
accused on his appearance under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The
substance of accusation made by the complainant was put to the
accused and he was questioned. The accused denied having
committed any offence and thereafter the complainant examined
himself and 3 other witnesses in the trial court and also marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P24.
xii.Thereafter the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances appearing against him in
evidence. The accused denied of having committed any offence.
However, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on
his side.
xiii.After analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
both sides, the learned trial court judge acquitted the accused
under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under
Section 500 IPC, vide her judgment dated 18.04.2023.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been
filed by the complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
5. Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
though the complainant was taking care of his mother, the respondent,
with an intention to defame his reputation, had given a false complaint
before the police, on account of which the police visited his house and
enquired him. It is also her contention that, by that time the mother of
the complainant also died. According to her, the trial court had acquitted
the accused merely on the ground that Ex.P1 compliant was not given by
the accused.
6. In order to prove the offence under Section 500 IPC, the
complainant has to prove the following ingredients.
a) Accused should have caused imputation;
b) The imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or
intended to be read or made by signs or by visible representations;
c) The accused made or published the incriminating imputation.
d) The imputation concerned the complainant i.e. the alleged
defamation was concerned the complainant.
e) The intention behind the making or publishing the imputation was
causing harm to the reputation of such person.
In the instant case, the main contention of the complainant is that the
accused had lodged a complaint with the Deputy Inspector General of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
Police alleging that the complainant is not giving proper treatment to his
mother and also burning her clothes outside his house, which causes
pollution. According to the complainant, this allegation of the
respondent is totally false as he was taking care of his mother by giving
her proper medical treatment and that the police came over to his house
for enquiry on which date his mother also died. The complaint given by
the accused is marked as Ex.P1 in the instant case which reads as under:
"Nkw;gb Kfthpapy; Xk; rkaGu khhpak;kDf;F Myak;
mikj;J, fle;j 28 Mz;L fhykhf Nfhtpy; Kiwahf elj;jp
mk;kDf;F Nrit nra;J tUfpNwd;. ,e;j Nfhtpy; ehb tUk;
gf;jh;fSf;F mk;kd; mUshy;, Nehaw;w tho;Tk;, Fiwtw;w
nry;tKk;, ey;y fy;tpawpTk; ngw;W tUfpwhh;fs;.
,e;epiyapy; vdJ vjph; tPl;by; FbapUf;Fk; uhkrhkp
kfd; nry;tuh[;, mtUila jhahh; cly;eyk; Fd;wp gLj;j
gLf;ifahf clypy; gy ,lq;fspy; fl;b Njhd;wp, ntbj;J uj;jKk;
rPYkhf tbe;J nfhz;L, Neha; njhw;Wf;Fk;, fpUkp
jhf;FjYf;Fk; Mshfp mtjpg;gl;L nfhz;L ,Uf;fpwhh;. mtUila
jha; Nky; Nghh;j;jpapUf;Fk; MiliaAk;, uj;jKk; rPYk; Jilj;j
gpl; JzpfisAk; tPl;Lf;F Kd;dhy; itj;J vhpf;fpwhh;. ,ij ,q;F
itj;J vhpf;fhjPh;fs; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. ePq;fs; trjp kpf;fth;fs;
ey;y kUj;Jtkidapy; Nrh;e;J Kiwahd rpfpr;ir jhUq;fs; vd;W
nrhd;Ndd; mjw;F mth; vd;id jfhj thh;j;ijfshy; jpl;b, ehd;
ahh; njhpAkh? vd; rk;ke;jp tpj;ah tpfh]; Owner, ehd;
epidj;jhy; cd;id mopj;J tpLNtd; vd kpul;Lfpwhh;. jpdKk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
NghyP]; mDg;gp vdf;F njhy;iy nfhLf;fpwhh;. mth;
cwtpdh;fis fhhpy; tutioj;J mth;fs; Kd;dhy; itj;J vd;id
Nftykhf jpl;Lfpwhh;. jpdKk; vdf;F kd cisr;ry; jUfpwhh;.
vd;id Mya gzpNah, G+i[Nah nra;a tplhky; kd cisr;ry;
jUfpwhh;. Myaj;Jf;F tUfpwth;fis ,q;F rhkp Fk;gpl tuf;$lhJ
vd;Wk;, cd; Fy nja;t NfhtpYf;F Ngh vd;Wk; kpul;Lfpwhh;.
,jdhy; ehDk;, nghJkf;fSk; kd cisr;rYf;F MshfpNwhk;.
,jdhy; nghJkf;fs; vd;dplk; te;J ,jw;F VjhtJ top
nra;Aq;fs;, ,th; jUfpw njhy;iyf;F VjhtJ ghpfhuk; NjLq;fs;
vd Nfhhpf;if itf;fpwhh;fs;.
Nkw;gb r%fj;ij jho;ikAld; Nfl;L nfhs;fpNwd;. vd;
vjph; tPl;by; ,Uf;Fk; nry;tuh[; jUfpw njhy;iyiaf; fl;LgLj;jp
vd; capUf;Fk;, vd; Myaj;jpw;Fk; ,q;F tUfpw gf;jh;fspd;
capUf;Fk; Mgj;J tuhkYk;, Mya gzpfSf;F mth; jil
nra;ahkYk; ,Uf;f, Mtz nra;AkhW jq;fis jho;ikAld; Nfl;Lf;
nfhs;fpNwd;."
The respondent/accused had stated in the trial court that Ex.P1 was not
given by him and that one of his devotees might have given the same.
However, the complainant did not take steps to examine the police
officials who investigated the complaint allegedly given by the accused.
Moreover, the complainant had not stated anything in his deposition as to
which of the police officers came down to his house and inquired him on
the date of death of his mother. The trial court judge in paragraph in 12.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
had observed thus:
"12.4. Further the learned complainant counsel submitted
in his Written argument that the court has to invoke Section
73 of Indian Evidence Act to arrive conclusion by
comparing the signature find place in the complaint Ex.P1
with the court documents of accused signature that are
found place in the questioning of accused Under Section
251 and 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C. The main primary object of this
case is whether the accused had lodged complaint (Ex.P1)
before DIG, Salem. The burden of proof cast upon the
complainant to prove the veracity of complaint and he has
to prove that the complaint was lodged by the accused
person. Sometimes comparing the signature with naked eye
would end in mistake but the comparison of signature
through forensic expert would have higher value and would
have better result. In this case court in sending the
signature of accused to the scientific expert for comparison,
but in due course of arguments suggesting court to compare
the accused signature by invoking Section 73 Indian
Evidence Act, without filing any proper application could
not be acceptable one.
The document Ex.P1, Ex.P2 were obtained from RTI.
Thought it has its own sanctity, the accused denied about
the lodgment of complaint Ex.P1. Hence, the complainant
has to take steps to produce the original document, i.e. the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
primary document. The author who alleged to have given
the complaint before the lawful authority is itself under
question, non examination of police officials to whom the
complaint was lodged was not examined by the complainant
on his side. It forms fatal to the complainant's case.
Furthermore the accused on his reply notice itself has
stated and relinguished his liability raising his denial on
lodgment (Ex.P1) before DIG of police. Therefore, primary
duty casts upon the complainant to prove the veracity of
complainant. Since the accused had denied the execution of
complaint Ex.p1, considering the complainant has not taken
steps to send the alleged document before concerned
scientific authority for the proof of its execution, at this
instance this court is of view that the complainant has not
proved that the accused had given the complaint Ex.P1."
7. In any event even assuming that Ex.P1 complaint was given by
the present accused, there is no ingredient in the complaint to attract the
offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. In fact, the respondent
seems to have given advice to the complainant to admit his mother in a
good hospital. By no stretch of imagination, this can be stated that the
accused had defamed the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of
public. The trial court had concluded by observing thus:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
The contents of Ex.P1 cannot be stated as defamatory, false,
misconception one. Already this court has decided that the
complainant has not proved that alleged complaint Ex.P1
was given by the accused by examining lawful authority to
whom Ex.P1 was given. This second issues need not be
considered. Further, this court also finds that Ex.P1 was
alleged to have been given before lawful authority and there
is no publication was made on Ex.P1. The lodgment of
complaint (Ex.P1) before the police would not amount to
defamation, unless and until the conclusion was arrived on
the complaint.
8. All the observations made by the trial court judge are based on
well laid principles of law. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere
with the same.
9. In the result,
i. The Criminal appeal is dismissed.
ii. the judgment dated 18.04.2023 made in C.C.No.163 of 2018 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
20.07.2023
bga
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non speaking Order
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
Crl.A.No.770 of 2023
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
