Madras High Court
Vijay Gurunatha Sethupathi. K vs Maha Ghandhi
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 22.06.2022
Delivered On : 29.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14220 & 14216 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021
Vijay Gurunatha Sethupathi. K
S/o.G.Kalimuthu,
Hindu, aged about 43 years
Having Office at
Vijay Sethupathi Productions,
No.33 – 17, Poochi Athipedu,
Thirunagar, Valasaravakkam,
Chennai – 600 087. ... Petitioner/1st Accused
-vs-
Maha Ghandhi ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.4738 of 2021 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Saidapet, against the Petitioner.
Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021
M.A.Johnson ... Petitioner/2nd Accused
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021
-vs-
Maha Ghandhi ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.4738 of 2021 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Saidapet, against the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Ms.Narmadha Sampath
in both cases
For Respondent : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh
in both cases
COMMON ORDER
Both these Criminal Original Petitions had been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4738 of 2021 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, against the Petitioner.
2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners Ms.Narmadha Sampath submitted her arguments. She had invited the attention of this Court to the averments in the complaint. The copy of the complaint is enclosed in the typed set filed along with these Criminal Original Petitions. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the private complaint preferred by the Respondent/De-facto Complainant in its entirety 2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 cannot at all be entertained by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet who had taken the complaint on file. As per Sections 200 and 201 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate before taking the complaint on file had to consider the statements of the Complainant, other supporting witnesses and also documents, if any, filed by the De-facto Complainant along with the complaint and only on satisfaction of the sworn statement recorded by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has the discretion either to entertain or reject the complaint. In this case, the complaint begins with a narrative that an occurrence had taken place within the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru where there had been exchange of wordy quarrel and the Petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries on the De- facto Complainant/Respondent and the concluding portion of the complaint contains averments that the interview given by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021 herein to the media had caused damage to the reputation of the De-facto Complainant. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC are invoked. Therefore, the complaint had been filed for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 500 and 506(ii) of IPC. On consideration of the averments in the complaint, the 3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 alleged offences attracting Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC is alleged to have occurred at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that on the alleged date of occurrence, he had preferred a complaint to the Airport Police Station at Bangaluru. Subsequently, when the Airport Police at Bengaluru conducted enquiry, he had given a letter to the Station House Officer of the Airport Police Station that he does not intend to proceed with the complaint. Had he been aggrieved, he could have proceeded with the complaint resulting in registration of the case by the Airport Police at Bangaluru. Instead, he had given a letter that he does not want to proceed with the matter considering the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent as both working in the film industry. Suppressing this, preferring complaint and then giving letter to the Station House Officer of the Airport Police Station, the Petitioner had preferred a private complaint before the Court of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. As per the averments in the complaint, the occurrence took place in Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Therefore, the learned IX 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 Metropolitan Magistrate had not applied his/her mind in considering the sworn statement of the De-facto Complainant and the witnesses and ignored the provisions of Sections 200 and 201 of Cr.P.C. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, had mechanically taken the complaint on file and issued summons to the Petitioner in both the cases. Therefore, these two Criminal Original Petitions had been filed by the Petitioners who were arrayed as Accused 1 and 2.
3.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the complaint is not entertainable or maintainable before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet on two grounds viz., (i) the alleged occurrence took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet; and (ii) for the alleged offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C., what are the words uttered by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 causing annoyance to the Respondent/De-facto Complainant had not been mentioned in the averments. Therefore, the alleged offences are not attracted. On that point also, this complaint is not maintainable before the learned IX Metropolitan 5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 Magistrate, Saidapet. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the said complaint taken on file by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in which summons had been issued on the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021. The alleged interview was published, broadcast, or telecast on the Youtube channel and the office of which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. Therefore, the offence alleged against the Petitioners in both the cases regarding defamation attracts offence under Section 499 of IPC for which punishing Section 500 of IPC had also been included in the complaint is not at all attracted. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought to quash the complaints on the above two grounds.
4.In support of her submission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed placed reliance on the following rulings:
4.1.In the case of Sahib Singh -vs- State of Haryana reported in [(1997) 7 SCC 231 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
“Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding the truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR/registering a complaint, the complainant must give an explanation for the same. However, deliberate delay in lodging the 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 complaint is always fatal.” 4.2.In the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal and another reported in [(1992) SUPP (1) SCC 335], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the the following guidelines:
“An FIR can be quashed by the High Court where allegations made in the FIR complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 4.3.In the case of Dr.Raman Srikanth -vs- State of Telengana reported in [2015 Cri.L.J. 1607] the Hyderabad High Court had held as follows:
“The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4.4.In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others -vs- Surendra Prasad Sinha reported in [1993 Supp. (1) SCC 499], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 “5.It is also salutary to note that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needles harassment. The complaint was laid impleading the Chairman, the Managing Director of the Bank by name and a host of officers. There lies responsibility and duty on the Migistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. Considered from any angle we find that the respondent had abused the process and laid complaint against all the appellants without any prima facie case of harass them for vendetta.” 4.5.In the case of Y.Abraham Ajith and Others -vs- Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in [(2004) 8 SCC 100] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
“12.The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms of Section 177 of the Code it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused.
13.While in civil cases, normally the expression "cause of action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression "cause of action" is therefore not a stranger to criminal cases.8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021
19.When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” 4.6.In the case of Bhura Ram and Others -vs- State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2008) 11 SCC 103 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
“Court cannot try the offence at a place, where no part of the offence was committed within its jurisdiction. In the sai case, the Apex Court having quashed the proceeding, on the ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the complaint was directed to be returned to tohe complainant enabling him to file the same in appropriate court, having territorial jurisdictiojn. As no part of the offence or cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jorhat, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat did not have the jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case in hand.” 4.7.In the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman -vs- Khazir Mohammad Tunda reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:
“20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that 9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course.” 4.8.In the case of Birla Corporation Limited -vs- Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 2390, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“34. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.
36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.” 10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 4.9.In the case of Kesavan Natesan -vs- Madhavan Peethambharan and Others reported in 1984 Cri.LJ 324, the Keral High Court had observed as under:
“13. If "taking cognizance" means only "becoming aware of" or "taking judicial notice of" an offence, whatever might be the situation in a given case, in law the Magistrate takes cognizance or becomes aware of an offence only once. In that sense, it is correct to say that Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence twice. When on the basis of a police report or private complaint or otherwise, a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, he becomes aware of the commission of the offence and that awareness will certainly continue or at any rate in the eyes of law, be deemed to continue. In such state of affairs, the commission of an offence is again brought to his notice, say by way of private complaint; strictly speaking, he does not take cognizance of the offence again but exercises his judicial power and proceeds with that case in pursuance of the cognizance already taken by him on the previous occasion.” 4.10.In the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others
-vs- V.Narayana Reddy and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
“Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under s. 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of s. 190(l)(a).” 4.11. In the case of M/s.Pepsi Foods Ltd., -vs- Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
“28.Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
5.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/De-facto Complainant submitted that the Respondent/De-facto Complainant does not have faith in the Police. That is why, he gave a letter not to proceed further with the complaint. Also, the Petitioners in both the cases are influential people and obtained such a letter through the Police at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. Therefore, the Respondent/De-facto Complainant was forced to give such a letter withdrawing the complaint. After coming to Chennai, the friends of the Respondent/De-facto Complainant called him and informed him that in Youtube channel, there was a telecast regarding the occurrence at Kempegowda International Airport, Bangaluru for which the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 had given interview 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 stating that the skirmish took place at Kempegowda International Airport due to a person entering under the influence of alcohol picked up a quarrel with the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 and the Petitioners do not know about the person. Those who had contacted the Respondent/De-facto Complainant had stated that the interview caused damage to the reputation, standing of the Respondent/De-facto Complainant. On verification of the Youtube Channel, the Respondent/De-facto Complainant found to his shock that the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021 had given interview as though the Respondent/De-facto Complainant is not known to the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021 and they had alleged that he was under the influence of alcohol and he was the person who attacked them that had affected his reputation especially affecting his profession as a Actor. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the De-facto Complainant/Respondent had preferred this Complaint before the Court of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
6.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that as per Section 178 of Cr.P.C., when there are 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 occurrence taking place in different places which are under the jurisdiction of different Courts, it has to be treated as continuous offence and the person/the victim, who suffered, have the option to prefer complaint in any of the Courts where the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable and the Petitions seeking to quash the complaint is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal and another [(1992) SUPP (1) SCC 335] and the private complaint preferred by the Respondent/De-facto Complainant cannot be quashed. What had been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are to be treated as valuable defence available to the Petitioners before the trial. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss both the Criminal Original Petitions.
7.By way of re-joinder, Ms.Narmadha Sampath, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that what had been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/De-facto Complainant that the Respondent/De- facto Complainant did not have faith in police and therefore, he preferred a private complaint cannot at all be entertained, when offence had taken place 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 it is the duty of the citizen to prefer a complaint to the Police. Here is the case where the occurrence had taken place at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, and the Respondent/De-facto Complainant had given complaint to the Airport Police and for the same cause of action, instead of proceeding with the complaint at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, the Respondent/De-facto Complainant withdrew the complaint and as an after-thought, he filed a compliant in a Court where the territorial jurisdiction is not at all extended, is not at all attracted regarding the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. The Youtube Channel had telecast the interview by the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25623 of 2021 from Delhi for which, the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC had been filed out side the jurisdiction of Delhi viz., before the Court of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Therefore, the complaint averments had not been considered by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and had mechanically taken the complaint on file. Under those circumstances, this Complaint is not maintainable and has to be quashed.
8.In light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mrs. Narmadha Sampath and the reliance placed upon by her in 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 the reported rulings viz., (i) Sahib Singh -vs- State of Haryana [(1997) 7 SCC 231, (ii) State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal and another [(1992) SUPP (1) SCC 335], (iii) Dr.Raman Srikanth -vs- State of Telengana [2015 Cri.L.J. 1607], (iv) Punjab National Bank and Others -vs- Surendra Prasad Sinha [1993 Supp. (1) SCC 499], (v) Y.Abraham Ajith and Others -vs- Inspector of Police, Chennai [(2004) 8 SCC 100], (vi) Bhura Ram and Others -vs- State of Rajasthan and another [(2008) 11 SCC 103] (vii) Mehmood Ul Rehman -vs- Khazir Mohammad Tunda [(2015) 12 SCC 420], (viii) Birla Corporation Limited -vs- Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others [AIR 2019 SC 2390], (ix) Kesavan Natesan -vs- Madhavan Peethambharan and Others [1984 Cri.LJ 324], (x) Devarapalli [(1976) 3 SCC 252], (xi) M/s.Pepsi Foods Ltd., -vs- Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749] and on the averments in the complaint before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, the offences alleged in the petition under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC are alleged to have occurred in the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, which is the basis for this complaint. The Respondent/De-facto Complainant had suppressed the fact that he had 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 preferred a complaint and subsequently withdrawn at Kempegowda Airport Police Station. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the ingredients of the offences are not made out in the complaint. The place of occurrence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Therefore, the offences alleged in the petition under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC are not at all attracted. As per the averments in the petition, it is felt by this Court that the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet has not applied his/her mind to the averments in the petition as per Section 201 of Cr.P.C. and had taken on file the complaint mechanically.
9.The averments regarding defaming the Respondent/De-facto Complainant by the Petitioners herein/Respondents in the complaint through interviews in the Youtube channels is found attracted as per Section 499 of the I.P.C. and as per Section 201 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the reliance placed upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is rejected regarding the averments regarding affecting the reputation of the De-facto Complainant. 17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021
10.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/De-facto Complainant vehemently opposing to quash the complaint and placing reliance on the rulings cited by him is accepted only with reference to offence under Section 500 IPC.
11.In the light of the above discussions, the offences under Section 500 IPC alone is made out as against the Petitioners. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is directed to proceed with the trial of the complaint as per law and dispose of the same with regard offence under Section 500 of I.P.C.
In the result, both the Criminal Original Petitions are partly allowed. Consequently, the complaint regarding the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(i) of IPC against the Petitioners are quashed. The Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed regarding defamation. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is directed to proceed with the trial with regard to offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. and dispose of the same within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of a 18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 copy of this order or from the date of uploading of this order on the website of this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.07.2022 SRM Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
SRM 19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.25623 and 25625 of 2021 29.07.2022 20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis