Madras High Court
K. Gnasekharan vs S.V. Ramamoorthy on 1 August, 2008
Author: K. Mohan Ram
Bench: K. Mohan Ram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:1-08-2008 THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM CRL.O.P. No.4710 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 1. K. Gnasekharan 2. Shanthi Balakrishnan Petitioners vs S.V. Ramamoorthy respondent Petition filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C praying this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.2830 of 2007 now pending on the file of XIII M.M, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the complaint. For petitioners: Mr.V. Karthic for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co For respondent : Mr.S.V. Ramamoorthy Party in person ORDER
The above petition has been filed under Sec.482 C.rP.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2830 of 2007 on the file of 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chenani.
2. The 1st petitioner is the elder brother of the 2nd petitioner. The daughter of the 2nd petitioner Mahalakshmi was given in marriage to the son of the respondent by name S.R. Bhupeshkar in 2004. Subsequently, misunderstanding arose between two families and a police complaint was given against the respondent, his wife and son for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been laid and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2830 of 2007 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
3. It is further seen that the respondent had initially filed a writ petition seeking to quash the investigation, but the same was dismissed and S.L.P filed there against also came to be dismissed and thereafter, the respondent has filed Cr.O.P.No.15536 of 2005 to quash the first information report, but that also came to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid back ground, the respondent is said to have agreed to hand over the movables belonging to the daughter of the 2nd petitioner on 21.12.2006. Accordingly, the respondent had handed over the articles belonging to the daughter of the 2nd petitioner. When the respondent came out of the house, the petitioners were said to have abused the respondent, which according to the respondent, amounts to defamation and alleging that the words spoken by the petitioners concerning the respondent herein had made the respondent to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the respondent and therefore, filed a private complaint for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.500 IPC and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.2830 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. To quash the proceeding in C.C.NO.2830 of 2007, the accused therein, who are the petitioners herein, have filed the above petition.
5. Heard Mr.V. Karthic, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averments in the complaint are taken on the face value to be true, the same would only be common abuses not having any imputation on the person towards whom they have used and therefore, does not constitute any offence punishable under Sec.500 IPC. The learned counsel also submits that in the complaint it is not even stated that the language used by the petitioners were made with the intention to harm the respondent and therefore, no offence under Sec.500 IPC has been made out.
6. The learned counsel further submits that in the complaint, it is not stated that by usage of such words, spoken by the petitioners, the reputation of the respondent has been harmed and therefore, in the absence of such essential ingredients, no offence punishable under Sec.500 IPC has been made out.
7. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1972 LW (Crl.) 226(Seetharama Iyer and another vs K.C. Ramulu alias Ramanathan)
8. A perusal of the said decision shows that in that case, there was some trouble between the respondent and the petitioner in respect of marriage alliance and the petitioners in that case visited the places of the respondent and during heated discussions, the petitioners have uttered the following words:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
9. While considering whether the said words uttered by the petitioners in that case will amount to defamation, the learned judge has observed as under:
"Mr. Nagarajan the learned counsel for the petitioners brings to my notice the decisions in Mst. Rukmani Bai vs Radha Ballabh (1) Empress v Bihari (2) Empress v Amir Hussain (3) and also Bahtawar lal vs The Crown (4) and states that those words taking into consideration teh circumstances under which they have been uttered could, at best, amount to only vulgar abuses without any intention to harm the reputation of the respondent herein. He also submits that use of such common abuses cannot be regarded as having any such imputation of the person towards whom they were used and that, therefore, does not constitute an offence under S.500 IPC. For this preposition, the learned counsel cited the above quoted decisions. It is clear that S.561-A of the Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings in proper cases either to prevent abuse of process in court or otherwise to secure teh ends of justice. As far as the present case is concerned, the facts of the case clearly prove that the words uttered are only vulgar abuses without any intention on the part of the petitoners herein to harm or defame the respondent herein. From the complaint it is clear that there is no intention to harm and there is also no knowledge to the petitioners herein that such imputation will harm the reputation of the respondent herein in any sense. Considering that the words uttered can at best amount to only vulgar abuses, I am of the view that no offence under S.499 of the IPC which is punishable under S.500 of the same has been made out against the petitioners herein
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case on hand is an identical case like in the case cited here also. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent got strained because of the criminal case filed against the respondent and his family members and because of breaking down of the marital relationship of the 2nd petitioners daughter while handing over the movable properties of the 2nd petitioners daughter, the alleged defamatory words are said to have been uttered by the petitioners herein and if these words are considered in the light of the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, at best, these words may amount of vulgar abuses made without any intention to harm the reputation of the respondent herein and it cannot be considered to be defamatory in nature.
11. The learned counsel submitted that the complaint is clear abuse of process of court and unless the proceedings are quashed the petitioners will be put to great hardship.
12. Countering in the aforesaid submissions, the respondent, who appeared in person, submitted that at this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether the words uttered by the petitioners will amount to defamation or not and the same can be decided only after the trial.
13. According to the respondent, the loss of reputation is not one of the ingredients for constituting an offence under Sec.500 IPC. Similarly, according to the respondent, motive or intention on the part of the petitioners, while uttering words is immaterial. The respondent further submitted that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, since they have not brought to the notice of this Court about the other allegations pending between the petitioners and the respondent.
14. In support of his contention, the respondent relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 SCC (Crl) 974 (John Thomas vs Dr.D. Jagadeesan). In the said decision, in paragraph 10, the Apex Court has observed as under:
10. Shri Sivasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the imputations contained in the publication complained of are not per se defamatory. After reading the imputations we have no doubt that they are prima facie libellous. The only effect of an imputation being per se defamatory is that it would relieve the complainant of the burden to establish that the publication of such imputations has lowered him in the estimation of the right-thinking members of the public. However, even if the imputation is not per se defamatory, that by itself would not go to the advantage of the publisher, for, the complaining person can establish on evidence that the publication has ini fact amounted to defamation even in spite of the apparent deficiency. So the appellant cannot contend, at this stage, that he is entitled to discharge on the ground that the imputations in the extracted publication were not per se defamatory.
15. Basing reliance on the above said decision of the Apex Court, the respondent submitted that the petitioners cannot contend at this stage that the words uttered by the petitioners will not per-se amount to defamation.
16. The respondent, after the conclusion of the hearing of the case, circulated a judgment reported in 1996 5 SCC 216 (Dr.D.C. Saxena vs Chief Justice of India)
17. A perusal of the said judgment shows that it has absolutely no relevance to the case on hand. This Court fails to understand as to how the law laid down therein is applicable to the facts of this case.
18. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. If the words said to have been uttered by the petitioners, which have been extracted above, are considered in the back ground of the circumstances, under which those words have been uttered, it cannot be said that the same amounts to defamation, but it may at best amount only to vulgar abuses without any intention to harm the reputation of the respondent herein.
19. The facts of the present case and the facts of the case relating to the decision reported in 1972 LW Crl 226 (Seetharama Iyer and another vs K.C. Ramulu alias Ramanathan)are almost identical. Hence in the considered view of this court, the said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case.
20. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the complaint, it is not stated that the petitioners uttered these words either with intention to harm or with knowledge that such imputations will harm the reputation of the respondent.
21. A reading of Sec.499 IPC makes it clear that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
22. Therefore, to constitute an offence under Sec.499 IPC, the words spoken by a person should have been spoken intending to harm the reputation of any person or the words spoken should have been spoken knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of another.
23. By keeping the above ingredients of the offence under Sec.499 IPC in mind, if the averments contained in the complaint are considered, it could be seen that nowhere in the complaint the respondent has stated that the words, which according to the respondent, amount to defamation were uttered or spoken by the petitioners herein either with intention to harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the respondent.
24. Thus the averments in the complaint do not establish or make out the ingredients of the offence under Sec.499 IPC. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have taken the complaint on file.
25. As laid down in 1972 LW Crl 226 (Seetharama Iyer and another vs K.C. Ramulu alias Ramanathan) and as pointed out above at best, the words said to have been spoken by the petitioners would amount to only vulgar abuses and by no stretch of imagination it could be said that will amount to defamation.
26. The decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 SCC Crl 974 ( (John Thomas vs Dr.D. Jagadeesan) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, the Apex Court has observed as follows:
10. ..... after reading of the imputations, we have no doubt that they are prima-facie libellous
27. Having observed so, the Apex Court has further held that
10. " However, even if the imputation is not per se defamatory, that by itself would not go to the advantage of the publisher, for, the complaining person can establish on evidence that the publication has ini fact amounted to defamation even in spite of the apparent deficiency".
28. But in this case, this court has come to the conclusion that the words said to have been uttered by the petitioners will not amount to defamation. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No. 2830 of 2007 on the file of 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chenani are quashed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed.
sr To
1. The 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai