Madras High Court
Anjali @ Balathirupurasundari vs Mu.Kalainjiyam on 20 August, 2014
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.08.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.O.P.No.30318 of 2013 and MP.No.1 of 2013 Anjali @ Balathirupurasundari .. Petitioner Vs. Mu.Kalainjiyam .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records culminating in CC No.2717 of 2013 pending on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.Kumar Talrejaa O R D E R
The present petition is filed by the accused to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2717/2013 arising out of the private complaint filed by the respondent herein for the alleged offence under section 500 IPC.
2.The main ground on which the complaint is sought to be quashed herein is that the averments raised in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC and the impugned defamatory statement allegedly made by the petitioner herein is not disclosed in the complaint. It is also contended before this court that the complaint is the counter blast for the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent herein and is filed with malice intention to take revenge against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also denied giving any interview to the newspaper directly, publication of which is the cause of action for filing the impugned private complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the authority of this court reported in 1997 Crl.LJ 4585 (J.Jayalalitha v. Arcot N.Veerasamy) in support of his contention that the complaint does not contain necessary averment as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
4.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
5.The fact that both the petitioner and the respondent belong to film industry, is not denied. While the petitioner is an actress, the respondent is the producer-cum-director. While so, misunderstanding arose between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent and the Maternal aunt of the petitioner by name Bharathi Devi on other hand, resulting in complaint and counter complaint by and against each other. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she has given two separate complaints against the respondent and her maternal aunt for the alleged act of forgery of the documents and for having used the documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating the petitioner and for cheating the petitioner by misappropriating huge amount belonging to the petitioner. As far as the defamatory statement, which is the subject matter of the present complaint is concerned, it is an interview purportedly made by the petitioner to the media at Hyderabad. It is alleged therein that she was under the custody of her maternal aunt and the respondent, who compelled her to act according to their tunes and deprived her of her personal freedom and they are in custody of the properties, which were purchased by the petitioner through acting in movies etc and similar allegations are made in the interview and in the complaint lodged before the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
6.The fact that whether she was given one such statement or not, is the matter for evidence. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seriously argued that the averments made in the complaint are not sufficient enough to make out any case under section 499 IPC punishable under section 500 IPC. It is also contended before this Court that though the complaint proceeds to say that the statement made by her was intended to harm his reputation, there is no averment made in the complaint that it directly or indirectly lowers the moral or intellectual character or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling or credit of that person as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
7.In order to appreciate the contention so raised on the side of the petitioner, it is but relevant to refer Section 499 and Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which is extracted hereunder:
"499. Defamation:
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 cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."
"Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
8.In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the learned brother Judge, M.Karpagavinayagam,J. reported in 1997 Crl.LJ 4585 (J.Jayalalitha v. Arcot N.Veerasamy), wherein, the accused made certain defamatory statement against the complainant in the news item published and the complainant, on reading the newspaper which published the said defamatory statement, felt that it was made to tarnish the image of the complainant in the public. However, the learned brother judge has held that the complaint cannot be proceeded with mainly by reason of absence of averments in the complaint that because of alleged imputation, the complainant's reputation had been lowered in estimation of others. The learned counsel for the petitioner has by applying the same view, argued before this court that absence of averments as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 will render the complaint to be defective in nature and the same cannot be proceeded further. The reading of the above cited judgment will show that the learned brother judge of this court upheld such contention raised on the side of the accused and dismissed the revision filed by the complainant in favour of the accused. The learned brother judge, by following the earlier authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court reported in (i)1997 Cri LJ 212 (SC) (Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi) and (ii)1970 Mad LW (Crl) 4 (Mis Violet Wapshare v. Miss Maureen Fround), observed that in the complaint, there shall be an averment to the effect that because of the imputation the complainant's reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others, as such, material averment was absent in the complaint and in the sworn statement and there was no sufficient material to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 500 IPC against the accused.
9.Here is the case, wherein, the reading of the complaint would reveal that what was stated in the complaint is that the defamatory statement was made with an intention to spoil the reputation of the respondent in public. However, there is no specific averment that it actually lowered the reputation of the respondent in the estimate of others. In the absence of any specific averment in the complaint, the main ingredient for the offence under section 499 IPC is not made out. In that event, there is no justification for this court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner herein and this court feels that it is a fit case wherein the proceedings is liable to be quashed.
10.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No.2717 of 2013 pending on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 stands quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
rk 20-08-2014
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras,
K.B.K.VASUKI, J.
Crl.O.P.No.30318 of 2013
20-8-2014