Madras High Court
M.Rajendran vs Public Prosecutor on 1 November, 2019
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017
and
CRL.M.P.(MD).No.9055 of 2017
M.Rajendran : Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
Public Prosecutor,
Madurai District,
O/o, Public Prosecutor,
District Court Building,
Madurai.
(Representing on behalf of the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) : Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code to call for the records in pertaining to the complaint in
Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2017, on the file of the learned Ist Additional
Sessions Court, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
******
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2017, pending on the file of the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017
2. The respondent has filed a defamation complaint against the petitioner for defaming the former Chief Minister by using obscene words while addressing a meeting.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Public Prosecutor can file a complaint on behalf of the former Chief Minister only if the allegations made in the complaint satisfies the requirements of Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are taken as it is, the words used are against the concerned individual and it is not in respect of the conduct of the Chief Minister in discharge of her public function.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner has used abusive language against the former Chief Minister and the same has been done while addressing a general meeting. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also touched upon certain relief measures that were given for the flood victims and has criticized the same and those imputations will clearly fall within the requirements under Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they are acts in discharge of the public function. The learned counsel 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 submitted that a Chief Minister should not have been abused in such filthy language and the persons like the petitioner should not be let off and must be made to face the proceedings before the Court below. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested this Court to fix a time limit for completion of the proceedings.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
6. It will be relevant to extract the portions of the complaint, which according to the respondent are the imputations made by the petitioner and which are defamatory in nature:-
“jpuhtpl Kd;Ndw;wf;fofj;jpd; jiytu;> ,dkhdj;jiyth; vq;fs; jiyth; lhf;lh; fiyQh; mth;fs; nghJ tho;tpYk;> murpaypYk; ePz;l mDgtk; nfhz;lth;. mtiug;ghh;j;J jkpo;ehl;bd; Kjyikr;ruhf ,Uf;ff;$ba ,e;j n[aypyjh nthf;fhs Nthsp ? rpdpkhtpNy lhd;]; Mbf;fpl;L ,Ue;j Njtpbah Kz;il n[ayypjh> vq;fs; ,dkhdj;;jiyth; fiyQiu> fUzhepjp> fUzhepjp vd;W jpUk;g jpUk;gr;nrhy;yp nfhz;bUf;fpd;whs;. nrd;idapNy nghpa nts;sk; te;jJ. 300NgUf;F Nky; nrj;Jg;NghapUf;fpd;whh;fs;. nrj;Jg;Nghd xt;nthUtUf;Fk; 4 yl;rk; nfhLf;fp;d;Nwd; vd;W nfhLf;fpd;whs; n[ayypjh. kf;fs; gzj;ij vLj;Jf;nfhLf;fpd;whs;. eP 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 nrj;jhy; 4 yl;rk; &gha; nfhLj;JtpLtjh? nfhLj;Jtpl;lhy; NghJkh?
mz;zh jpKf nghJf;FOtpy; NgRk;NghJ vd;id mjpKf fl;rpf;fhuh;fs; mk;kh> mk;kh vd;W miof;fpd;whh;fs;. vdf;F vdJ nrhe;jg;ngaNu kwe;J Ngha;tpl;lJ vd;W NgRfpd;whs;. eP vj;jid gps;is ngj;jha; cd;id mk;kh> mk;kh vd;W $g;gpLtjw;F? ,Nj ,lj;jpy; jpUkq;fyj;jpy;> ,Nj Njth; rpiyf;F Kd;dhy; fhspKj;J jpKftpy; ,Ue;jNghJ mtiu itj;J jpKf rhh;gpy; nghJf;$l;lk; Nghl;L mth; NgrpaNghJ> [hdfpia ghh;j;jhy; Fk;gplj;Njhd;Wfpd;wJ vd;W Ngrpdhu;. rpdpkhj;Jiwapy; kpfTk; Nftykhf ,Ue;jts; jhd; ,e;j n[ayypjh. ,e;j Nftykhd n[ayypjhtpw;F kPz;Lk; Xl;Lg;Nghl;lhy;> jkpo;ehl;by; ahUk; Nurd; filfspy; nghUl;fs; thq;f KbahJ. jkpo;ehl;by; midj;J nghUl;fSila tpiyfSk; cah;e;J NghapUf;fpd;wd. ,e;j Ml;rp Nftykhd Ml;rp> ,e;j Nftykhd Ml;rpia tpul;babf;fNtz;Lk;. ehd; mLj;j $l;lj;jpy; ,d;Dk; tpupthf NgRfpd;Nwd; vd;W $wp vdf;F nfhLj;j tha;Gf;F ed;wp $wp tpilngWfpd;Nwd;. ed;wp tzf;fk; vd;W Ngrpdhh;.”
7. It has to be seen as to whether the above imputations that has been ascribed against the petitioner will satisfy the requirements of Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of R.Avudayappan Vs. Muthukaruppan, Public 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 Prosecutor, District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli District, reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 24. The relevant portions in the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
4.He further submitted that the person defamed in this case not only happened to be a high dignitary, but also a woman. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 192 (Charu Khurana Vs. Union of India) had highlighted the importance attached to the dignity of women. In the present case, the petitioner herein had spoken recklessly and defamed the personal character of the then Chief Minister and that therefore the impugned complaint is maintainable.
5.Though Thiru.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent addressed lengthy arguments in this regard and demanding dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition, this Court is not impressed with the contentions for the simple reason that the issue on hand is no longer res integra.
6.The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2018-L.W.(Crl.).
17=CDJ 2018 C 391 (K.K.Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh) had categorically held that Section 199 ( 2) Cr.P.C. provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of the acts / conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant, as the case may be.
8. This judgment has been subsequently considered by this Court in the case of Karur Murali Vs. Public Prosecutor, Tirunelveli, reported in (2018) 4 MLJ (Crl) 578. It will also be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Mishra Vs. The state of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl.)17. It is clear from the above judgments that the imputations howsoever reckless which has defamed the personal character of the former Chief Minister, has to satisfy the requirements of Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It must be seen as to whether the imputations in the present case pertains to discharge of public function. In other words, there must be a nexus between the defamatory statement and discharge of public duty and if that requirement is not satisfied, the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor cannot be held to be maintainable.
9. In the present case, the imputations are personal in 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 nature and ofcourse, it is a highly derogatory and reckless. However, it does not touch upon the discharge of public duty by the former Chief Minister. Therefore, the complaint does not satisfy the requirements of Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the present case is clearly covered by the judgments referred supra.
10. In the result, the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.04 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Sessions Court, Madurai, is hereby quashed and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.11.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
To
1. The Principal District Sessions Court, Madurai.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
tsg Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13450 of 2017 Dated:
01.11.2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in