Madras High Court
Thiru.Dayanidhi Maran vs City Public Prosecutor on 8 November, 2021
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved On : 08.10.2021
Pronounced On : 08.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
and CRL.MP.No.33 of 2021
Thiru.Dayanidhi Maran,
Member of Parliament,
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
No.4, Second Avenue,
Boat Club Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai – 600 028. ... Petitioner
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.45 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court to try offences against MP
& MLA, Chennai and quash the same and allow this Criminal Original
Petition.
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Sneha
For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
State Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
1/12
Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court to try offences against MP & MLA, Chennai and quash the same and allow this Criminal Original Petition.
2.The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.45 of 2020, facing trial on the complaint filed under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 500 IPC has filed this quash petition.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that on taking the complaint as a whole, there is no defamatory statement made against the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The interview given by the petitioner in a press meet on 18.04.2020, as a member of the Parliament criticising the way in which the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister were seeking help for the relief fund from the public is contrary to help the public, who were facing the COVID-19 pandemic situation and were suffering. The said press meet statement taken as offensive and a case filed, which is nothing but curtailing the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
4.The petitioner being a Member of Parliament, owes his duty to the public to highlight the short comings of the person in power. Further the persons holding public post should not be sensitive to criticism when performing their public duties. At the relevant point of time, the entire nation was under the severity of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner being a Member of Parliament was reaching out to the people to provide whatever help he could do. As a responsible citizen and elected Member of the Parliament venting out and pointing out the misdemeanour of the Government, highlighted its short comings and the same cannot be termed as defamatory. It is the duty of the Government to protect its citizens and not ask the citizens to help the Government monetarily, when the whole nation was reeling under pandemic situation. The interview was made in good faith and no where in the interview the petitioner pointed the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
5.The sanction accorded by the Government is nothing but malafide and with ulterior reason, without application of mind. The complaint on file is an attempt to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 3/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and taking cognizance of the complaint is nothing but interference, with the freedom of speech, which is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to the citizen in a democratic state.
6.He further submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.304, dated 19.06.2020, the transcripted imputation reproduced. On going through the same, no where the petitioner had stated anything against the then Chief Minister or any other Ministers in particular. In fact in the press meet, the petitioner not even mentioned the then Chief Minister's name or any Ministers names, he made reference against the Union Government. He further submitted that in the complaint, there is no mention about the former Chief Minister, the petitioner had no intention to harm any Minister's reputation is directly or indirectly lowered the moral or intellectual character of any Minister in estimation of others and the same was made in good faith and not to defame.
7.He further submitted that from the year 2020, the case before the lower court is kept idle without any progress. The petitioner is a former Minister in Government of India and he hails from a respectable family with legacy. He is a political personality, made certain comments and informed the 4/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 public and others the sorry State of affairs, which is part of democracy process, which cannot be termed as defamatory.
8.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the G,O.Ms.No.304, dated 19.06.2020, the respondent City Public Prosecutor filed a complaint invoking Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 500 IPC. The petitioner has not denied addressing the press meet by him on 18.04.2020, which was telecasted and widely publicized. In the press meet, petitioner specifically made serious imputations against the Chief Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu and Prime Minister of India. The transcripted defamatory portion of the press meet is produced in the complaint.
9.He further submitted that the Government had issued the G.O.Ms.No.572, Public (Law and Order-H) Department, 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.
5/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
10.Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that though the Government has passed the G.O.Ms.No.572, dated 10.08.2021, for withdrawal of the case, in view of the orders passed by the 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, wherein certain guidelines issued 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 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 and its impact upon public life especially where the matters involve public funds and the discharge of a public trust to be seen. In the case of the sitting, former MPs and MLAs, directions issued that no prosecution case shall be withdrawn without the lieu of the High Court.
11.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 Apex Court had drawn the guidelines with regard to the Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. which provides for a special procedure with regard to 6/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants.
12.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 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 7/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 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 8/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 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.
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”).”
13.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.
14.On perusal of the G.O. and the complaint, it is seen that no such imputation made in discharge of public function of the Ministers is found. The decision of the 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 9/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 Prosecutor, Tirunelveli in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17415 of 2018, Crl.O.P.No.2453 of 2015 and Crl.O.P.No.23619 of 2018.
15.The petitioner belongs to the opposition party and some political statements have been made. The allegations made in the complaint are general in nature and no way pertains to the public functioning of the Hon'ble Minister. In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be quashed.
16.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.11.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ah 10/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 To
1.The City Public Prosecutor, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected MPs and MLAs, Chennai.
11/12 Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ah PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.46 of 2021 08.11.2021 12/12