Madras High Court
E.V.K.S.Elangovan vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2022
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.11828 & 11829 of 2021
E.V.K.S.Elangovan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Dharapuram Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
Crime No:341 of 2016.
2. Radhakrishnan @ Udumalai Radhakrishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for records relating to the C.C.No.91
of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No-I, Tiruppur and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan
for Mr.C.Ramkumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for records relating to the C.C.No.91 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No-I, Tiruppur and quash the same.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the 2 nd respondent had preferred a complaint to the 1st respondent on 19.04.2016, contending that on 10.02.2016, near Dharapuram, New Police Station street from 19.00 to 21.20 hours, the petitioner during the election meeting had delivered a speech that, “Mapuk; Nfhbapy; 10 rpdpkh jpNal;lh;fis thq;fpdPh;fNs. ahUf;fhf> kf;fSf;F njhpahky; NtW VjhtJ xl;L cwT cz;lh> thhpR cz;lh vd;W Nfs;tp Nfl;f Njhd;whjh? 10 jpNal;lh;fis Mapuk; Nfhb &gha;fF ; thq;fpdPhf ; s; vd;W ehDk; fiyQUk;
nrhd;NdhNk ,Jtiu gjpy; nrhy;ytpy;iyNa
n[ayypjh mth;fNs” vd;Wk; NkYk; “kzkfd;
jiyapYk; ];bf;fh;> kzkfs; jiyapYk; ];bf;fh;>
vd;d ];bf;fh; vd;why; n[ayypjh ];bf;fh; vd;d
n[ayypjhTf;Fk; n[ayypjhTf;Fk; fy;ahzkh?
ngz;Zf;Fk; ngz;Zf;Fk; fy;ahzkh?” vd;Wk;> NkYk;
2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 “ahidfis nfhz;L KJkiyapNy Nfk;g; elj;JfpwPhf ; Ns mg;gbnad;d ahidfSf;Fk;> cq;fSf;Fk; cwT. cUt xw;Wikia jtpu ahidfSf;Fk;> me;j mk;ikahUf;Fk; ve;j
rk;ke;jKk; ,y;iy” vd;Wk; kpfTk; ju FiwthfTk;> fpo;jukhfTk;> murpay; ehfhPfj;jpw;F mg;ghw;gl;L NgrpAs;shh;”.
3. The case of the R2/defacto complainant is that the speech was a scandalous and defamatory one addressed against the Hon'ble then Chief Minister and it was published in Sun News and it is further alleged that the above false statement was made with the intent to defame the then Chief Minister and that without any basis, the petitioner has tried to create hardened feeling among the public in order to induce them to indulge in rioting. Based on the complaint, the 1st respondent had registered a case in Crime No.341 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and section 3 r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. The 1st respondent, after completion of investigation, filed the final report against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC. The 1st respondent had cited 14 witnesses. The case was taken up in C.C.No.91 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the present petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2021.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint given by the 2nd respondent is vague and defective as the same does not contain any ingredients necessary to attract the offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC. Though, the 1st respondent had registered the case under various provisions of law, he had filed the final report for the offences under Section 505(1)(b) alone and though, he had examined 13 witnesses including himself, none of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had committed the said offence and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had caused fear or alarm to the public or to any other section of the public whereby any person was induced to commit an offence against the state or against the public tranquility.
5. He would further submit that it was only a political speech made during the Election campaign and even assuming that the averments are taken to be true, they were made against the then Chief Minister in her personal capacity as the leader of the party and that the petitioner had not make any 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 imputations against the discharge of her official activities/functions. He would also submit that the offences under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC is non-cognizable offence and the respondent ought not to have registered the FIR without getting a specific permission as per the Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel would further submit that in this case, the respondent has also not obtained the previous sanction from the Government as required under Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence. Thereby, the entire proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner, who belongs to a particular political party during the election campaign, on 10.02.2016, had delivered a speech containing derogatory and defamatory imputations against the then Chief Minister. He would further submit that though the case was originally registered for the offence under Sections, 153, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and under Sections 3 r/w 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 and the respondent police after completion of investigation, had filed the final report for the offence under 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 Section 505(1)(b) of IPC.
8. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.
9. Though notice has been served on the de-facto complainant and his name printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the second respondent.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., which are extracted hereunder:-
Section 505(1) of IPC:
“(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,-
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, [sailor or airman] in the Army, [Navy or Air Force] of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the Public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.” Section 196 of Cr.P.C:
“196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153-A, [section 295-A or sub-section (1) of section 505] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 [(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of-
(a) any offence punishable under section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit [an offence] punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction [under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 according sanction under sub-section (1-A)] and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giveng consent under sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of section 155.”
11. Having perused the alleged speech, this Court is of the opinion that the speech was made against the then Chief Minister in her personal capacity as a leader of the Party. Further, none of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had made the speech with an intent to cause, or which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any other section of the public whereby any person was induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility. Further, there is no material that after the speech, anybody had committed offence against the State or against the public tranquility.
12. Further, in this case, the 1 st respondent has not obtained sanction from the Government as required under Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., and thereby, the trial Court is barred from taking cognizance. 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021
13. Further, this Court, having gone through the speech, is of the opinion that it does not attract offences punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC.
14. In view of the above, the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur in C.C.No.91 of 2021 is only an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings are quashed.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.04.2022 rgi/ham Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
rgi/ham Crl.O.P.No.21792 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11828 & 11829 of 2021 08.04.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis