Madras High Court
R.M.R.Ramesh vs City Public Prosecutor on 11 February, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.10.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5420 & 5423 of 2021
R.M.R.Ramesh,
Editor, Publisher and Printer,
“Dinakaran”,
Kal Publications Private Limited,
No:229, Kutchery Road, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004 and
Plot No:170, No:10, 1st Main Road,
Nehru Nagar, Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096. ... Petitioner/A6
Vs.
City Public Prosecutor,
High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in
C.C.No.02 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court No.1 for Trial of Criminal
Cases Related to Elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and quash
the same and allow this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Sneha
For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,
State Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2021, on the file of the Special Court No.1 for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2.The gist of the case is that at the time of occurrence, A1 was the Leader of the Opposition and President of political party viz., Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. A2 is the Chief News Editor in Sun TV network, A3 is the Chief News Editor in Kalaignar TV, A4 is the Chief News Editor in Puthiya Thalaimurai TV, A5 is the Editor and Publisher of Tamil Daily 'Murasoli' and A6, the petitioner herein is the Editor, Printer and Publisher in Tamil daily 'Dinakaran'. A1 gave interview against the then Hon'ble Chief Minsiter of Tamil Nadu on 07.12.2020, which was telecasted in SUN TV, Kalaignar TV, Puthiya Thalaimurai TV channels and also published in the Tamil dailies 'Murasoli' and 'Dinakaran' on 08.12.2020 under the caption 'eh';fs; murpay; bra;ahky; ntW vdd; bra;a Koa[k; vdf;F gl;lk; bfhLj;j vlg;gho “CHy; ehaf;fh;! bfhsj;J}hpy; epthuz cjtpfis tH';fp jiyth; K/f/!;lhypd; ngl;o! ehlhSkd;w njh;jypd; bgw;w btw;wpia tpl rl;lkd;w njh;jypy; gy kl';F btw;wp bgWnthk; jpKf jiyth; K/f/!;lhypd; ngl;o'. This Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 defamatory interview makes serious imputation against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The interview and its text telecasted and published only with an intention to malign the reputation, while discharging public function and duty by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister. Hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu accorded sanction to the respondent under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C., vide G.O.Ms.No.642, dated 16.12.2020 for filing the above complaint before the concerned Court. As against the complaint in C.C.No.2 of 2021, this petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defamatory interview of A1, President of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, was published in Tamil daily 'Murasoli' on 08.12.2020. On reading of the text of interview made by A1, nothing can be termed as defamatory. The petitioner/A6 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Tamil daily 'Murasoli'. A1 as a Leader of Opposition party in democracy, is duty bound to raise objection and criticise the steps taken by the Government affects general public. It is a democratic duty as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The petitioner/A6 published the interview text of A1 and it was not the personal view of the petitioner/A6. The petitioner is not a politician and not an elected member. The sanction accorded Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 by the prosecution under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., is not proper. The G.O.Ms.No.642, dated 16.12.2020, is passed mechanically, without application of mind and it is bad in law. The text of imputation found in the above said Government Order if read on a whole, will not amount to any defamatory statement.
4.He further submitted that the respondent/the City Public Prosecutor failed to satisfy as to how sanction for prosecution was accorded, when the imputation does not pertain to discharge of any official functioning of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He further submitted that the respondent can never to be a post man and his office is not the Post office to merely lay a complaint without examining the evidence and material on record. The respondent not verified whether the requirement of law under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., is made out. The trial Court failed to independently consider the materials produced, mechanically taken the complaint on file. In view of such fundamental defects, the prosecution cannot sustain and proceed against the petitioner. The Tamil daily 'Murasoli' is the official daily of a political party, the petitioner published the interview of A1 to educate the public about the decision taken by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, which is Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 the part of the democratic process and that cannot be termed as defamation. Further, in the complaint, it is nowhere stated that due to the imputation published by the petitioner/A6, the reputation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was directly or indirectly lowered his moral or intellect character in estimation of others. The interview was made in good faith and not to defame the intellectual character of anyone.
5.He further submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.579, dated 10.08.2021, the defamatory interview reproduced. On going through the same, nowhere A1 had stated anything against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister or any other Ministers in particular. The petitioner did not have any intention to harm the then Hon'ble Chief Minister's reputation directly or indirectly. From the year 2021, the case before the trial Court is kept idle without any progress. The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Tamil daily 'Murasoli' and he hails from a respectable family with legacy. A1 is a political personality, made certain comments, informed the public and others about the sorry State of affairs, which is part of democratic process and it cannot be termed as defamation.
6.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 G,O.Ms.No.642, dated 16.12.2020, the respondent filed a complaint invoking Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not denied the defamatory interview published in the Tamil daily 'Murasoli' on 08.12.2020. The petitioner with an intention to malign the reputation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu published such defamatory interview in 'Murasoli' Tamil daily. The defamatory statement is extracted in the complaint.
7.He further submitted that the Government had issued the G.O.Ms.No.579, dated 10.08.2021, on the recommendation of the Advocate General and Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras and they have opined that the defamation cases may be withdrawn as per Section 321 of Cr.P.C.
8.Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that though the Government has passed the G.O.Ms.No.579, dated 10.08.2021 for withdrawal of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court on 10.08.2021 in the case of “Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and another in W.P.(C).No.699 of 2016”, has issued certain guidelines to check the misuse of prosecutor's power in withdrawing cases under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Further, the power under Section 321 Cr.P.C., is required to be utilized with utmost Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 good faith to serve the larger public interest and it cannot be used for extraneous and political considerations. The nature and gravity of the offence, its impact upon public life especially where the matters involve public funds and the discharge of a public trust is to be seen. In the case of the sitting former MPs and MLAs, directions has been issued that no prosecution case shall be withdrawn without the lieu of the High Court.
9.From the perusal of the materials, it is seen that in the case of “K.K.Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in CDJ 2019 SC 391”, the Hon'ble Apex Court had drawn guidelines with regard to Section 199(2) Cr.P.C., which provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants. It would be beneficial to extract the paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the above said Judgment:-
“7. 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 functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant, as may be. The Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 prosecution under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the Competent Authority in the State/Central Government under Section 199 (4) of the Code. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Sessions that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate Court. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 199(4) Cr.P.C., therefore, envisages a departure from the normal rule of initiation of a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected persons alleging the offence of defamation. The said right, however, is saved even in cases of the category of persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. by sub-section (6) thereof.
8. The rationale for the departure from the normal rule has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in a judgment of considerable vintage in P.C. Joshi and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh1 [paragraph 9]. The core reason which this Court held to be the rationale for the special procedure engrafted by Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. is that the offence of defamation committed against the functionaries mentioned therein is really an offence committed against the State as the same relate to the discharge of public functions by such functionaries. The State, therefore, would be rightly interested Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 in pursuing the prosecution; hence the special provision and the special procedure.
1 AIR 1961 SC 387 P.C. Joshi (supra), however, specifically dealt with the provisions of Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“old Code”) which are pari materia with the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. (“new Code”).”
10.It is clearly stated that the offence of defamation committed attracting Section 199(2) Cr.P.C., against the functionaries mentioned therein is to be seen, where an offence committed is against the State and the same relate to the discharge of public functions by such functionaries. The State, therefore, would be rightly interested in pursuing the prosecution. Hence the special provision and the special procedure.
11.On perusal of the Government Order and the complaint, it is seen that no such imputation was made in discharge of public function of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is found. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.K.Mishra (cited supra) is consistently followed by this Court in the case of “Karur Murali Vs. Public Prosecutor, Tirunelveli in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17415 of 2018, Crl.O.P.No.2453 of 2015 and Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 Crl.O.P.No.23619 of 2018.”
12.The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Tamil daily 'Murasoli' and the political statements have been made by A1, was published in the Tamil daily 'Murasoli'. The allegations made in the complaint are general in nature and no way pertains to the public functioning of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister or any other Minister. In view of the same, the complaint filed by the respondent before the trial Court is liable to be quashed.
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2021, on the file of the Special Court No.1 for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is hereby quashed against all the accused. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Special Court No.1 for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 Chennai.
2.The City Public Prosecutor, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 Crl.O.P.No.8208 of 2021 11.02.2022 Page No.12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis