Madras High Court
A.R.Murugadoss vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 July, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL. O.P. NO. 29201 OF 2018
AND
CRL. M.P. NO. 17106 OF 2018
A.R.Murugadoss .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I,
Chennai.
Crime No.509 of 2018
2. G.Devarajan .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for
records in Crime No.509 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and
quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents : Mr. A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side) for R-1
No Appearance for R-2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.509 of 2018 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police. 1/1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
2. The present prosecution has been launched at the behest of a private complaint given by the 2 nd respondent, who claims himself to be a social activist, to the 1st respondent, alleging that the portrayal of a particular scene in the film “Sarkar” directed by the petitioner, in which visual portrayal of throwing the freebies, announced by the various Chief Ministers' and distributed by the Government to the public, especially the poor and downtrodden, in the fire, not only defamed the Government, but the said act also criticized the Government, the individuals and the political party, of its policies and, in turn, it incited violence, which led to law and order problem, thereby unleashing violent acts against the general public and spoiling the unity among the citizens. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that various electrical household appliances were given to the general public as a part of the scheme for use in the household, which was portrayed in bad light by the petitioner in the aforesaid movie with an intent to cause violence and unrest among the public, which attracts the offences u/s 153, 153-A (1) (a), 505 (1) (b), 505 (1) (c) of IPC, which led to the registration of the case by the 1 st respondent, on receipt of the complaint, in Crime No.509 of 2018.
3. Right to freedom of expression is one of the basic tenets of our 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 constitutional setup and it cannot be abrogated in any fashion by the law enforcers by resorting to filing of cases, merely because an act/expression/opinion of a particular individual is not in consonance with the taste and likes of another individual, unmindful of the fact that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and unless the ingredients of the complaint make out a case for proceeding against an individual, the law enforcing agency should be circumspect in acting in haste to register a complaint.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. - Vs - Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) has postulated the instances, where the Courts, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution or u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could wield its inherent powers to interfere with any action by the governmental agencies and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the same is quoted hereunder :-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, 3/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.”
5. Mindful of the above postulates of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the parameters that are to be fulfilled, lest which the FIR could be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the above dicta laid down, submitted that the view expressed by the petitioner are fully his personal views, which stand squarely covered by Article 19 (1) of the Constitution under the head “Freedom of Expression” and the same could in no way be termed to be maligning or defaming the act of the individuals or the Government. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the movie has 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 been certified by the Central Board for Film Certification for exhibition and once the statutory Board grants the requisite certificate, without challenging the validity of the certificate, imputing imputations against the petitioner that the portrayal is only for the purpose of creating a law and order situation and defaming the individuals and the Government for the purpose of inciting violence, is wholly a myth and not substantiated by any material. Further, the investigating agency has registered a case under the above provisions of law, more especially Sections 153 and 153-A (1) (a) IPC, however, the ingredients as found in the abovesaid sections does not stand fulfilled in the present case and, therefore, the FIR requires quashment. In support of his submission relating to the nature of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. - Vs - Union of India & Ors. (2018 (1) SCC 761).
6. Though none appears for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, however, a counter has been filed inter alia contending that by visual portrayal, the petitioner has instigated the viewers to act against the Government by screening acts, through the hero in the film, which in turn incites the general public to resort to such violent acts. It is the further averment of the 2 nd 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 respondent that the products given by the Government, through the various schemes implemented by it, are meant for the poor common public, who form a major chunk in the population of Tamil Nadu and the manner in which the visuals are depicted clearly shows the intent of the petitioner in maligning the name of the former Chief Minister and also the free schemes implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu at her instance. It is the further averment of the 2 nd respondent that following the footsteps of the actor, the products received from the government were thrown into the fire by persons, who have affinity to the actor and the director/petitioner and such acts have created a grave law and order situation and, therefore, the sinister motives of the petitioner could be unearthed only if a proper investigation is carried out and, therefore, vehemently opposed quashment of the FIR.
7. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent submits that freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution under Article 19 (1) (a) is subject to reasonable restriction and it cannot be used for the purpose of inciting violence by branding the beneficial acts of the government as publicity, however, it is to be pointed out that the 1 st respondent, even after a lapse of a period of three years, has not thought it fit to file its counter and in view of the passage of time and the pendency of the matter, this 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 Court is constrained to proceed with deciding the case on the basis of the materials available on record and also on hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 1st respondent.
8. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The right to reputation is an inherent right guaranteed by Article 21 and hence, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has to be balanced with the right under Article 21 and cannot prevail over the right under Article 21 as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy – Vs - Union of India (2016 (7) SCC 221). However, in the present case, though a faint attempt is made through the complaint and the counter that the act of the petitioner has defamed the individuals and the Government and, in turn, had incited violence, however, no offence u/s 499 and 500 IPC has been registered against the petitioner by the Government or its functionaries. Therefore, the right to reputation under Article 21 does not come in the way of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) and in the above backdrop, this Court is to only see whether the act of the petitioner 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 has overshot the freedom of expression provided as a constitutional guarantee under Article 19 (1) (a).
10. The petitioner has been slapped with the offences u/s 153, 153-A (1)
(a), 505 (1) (b), 505 (1) (c) of IPC. For better appreciation of the case, the relevant provisions are extracted hereunder :-
“Section 153. - Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot—if rioting be committed—if not committed — Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony — (1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or Section 505. - Statements conducing to public mischief — (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 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.”
11. While Section 153 deals with acts giving rise to provocation with intent to cause riot, Section 153-A (1) (a) pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Section 505 deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
12. Though the FIR has been registered for the afore stated offences, however, the main crux of the issue is that the film having been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, the complaint given by the 2nd respondent is nothing but an attempt to browbeat the petitioner into submissiveness and to impose upon him that nothing against the individual manning the Government or the Government could be expressed. The core of the allegations by the 2nd respondent is that the scene in the film, in which the freebies given by the Government were shown as thrown into the fire, had been portrayed only with an intention to destroy the solidarity and integrity of the nation by maligning and defaming the individual and the Government. It is not in dispute that the film directed by the petitioner had been subjected to censorship by the Central Board of Film Certification and has been issued with a certificate, dated 25.10.2018. Pursuant to the certification, the film has been released for the viewing of the general public.
13. It is to be pointed out that the Central Board of Film Certification is a statutory body, which has been created for the purpose of granting the requisite certificates for the exhibition of films, upon satisfying itself that the films do not in any way impede upon the peaceful life of the public, nor it creates any law and 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 order situation and it is safe and reasonable for viewing by the general public. Guidelines in this regard for certification of film has also been framed and the Board is to act within the contours of the said guidelines. It is to be highlighted here that the body of persons, who constitute the Central Board of Film Certification are persons of high repute, who, after viewing and satisfying that the film is safe for viewing by the normal citizens, grant certificate. Once the certificate is granted, without challenging the said certificate, no person could come before the Court and say that any parts portrayed in the film is likely or has caused a grave situation in which the law and order has been put in peril.
14. In the above background, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Viacom's case (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, gains significance and for better appreciation, the relevant of portion is extracted hereunder :-
“15. For the present, we are considering the prayer for grant of interim relief i.e., whether the notifications/orders prohibiting the exhibition of the film should be stayed or not. The creative content is an insegregable aspect of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Needless to emphasise, this right is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures. Regulatory measures are reflectible from the language employed under Section 5-B of the Act and the Guidelines issued by the 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 Central Government. Once the parliamentary legislation confers the responsibility and the power on a statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-exhibition of the film by the States would be contrary to the statutory provisions and infringe the fundamental right of the petitioners. That apart, as we understand at present from para 27 of the judgment in Prakash Jha Productions [Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 372] , it is the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order in the State. We may also note here with profit that the Guidelines are to be kept in mind by CBFC. For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the relevant part of the Guidelines:
“2. In pursuance of the above objectives, the Central Board of Film Certification shall ensure that— ***
(viii) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;
***
(x) scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
***
(xiii) visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented;
(xiv) visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitude are not presented;
*** 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 (xviii) public order is not endangered;”
16. It has to be borne in mind, expression of an idea by any one through the medium of cinema which is a public medium has its own status under the Constitution and the statute. There is a Censor Board under the Act which allows grant of certificate for screening of the movies. As we scan the language of the Act and the Guidelines framed thereunder, it prohibits use and presentation of visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups. Be that as it may. As advised at present, once the certificate has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the Guidelines including public order.
17. Mr Mehta would urge that grant of an interim order would tantamount to final expression of an opinion on the merits of the case. We do not think so. If a substantial ground is established in law by the States, there may be a different perception, for we are passing an interim order, considering the prima facie case and having due regard to the fundamental conception of right of freedom of speech and expression.
18. In this regard we may reproduce a passage from an order of this Court in Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification [Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC, (2018) 1 SCC 778] passed on 16-11-2017: (SCC p. 779, para 5) “5. Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of the expressive mind. The human history records that there are many authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of. A thought-provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law.” (Emphasis Supplied)
15. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not challenged the certificate issued to the said film by the Central Board of Film Certification. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the said scenes in the film has maligned and tarnished the reputation of the individuals and defamed the Government in the eyes of the general public and, in turn, it has incited violence, which has led to a grave law and order situation. Further, the complaint proceeds on the premise that the above film directed by the petitioner, in which, he has attacked the policies of the Government in giving freebies to the general public has caused a grave law and order situation, in that the public, in reaction to the scenes in the film, are replicating the said scenes in general life and, thereby, the life of the 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 common man is put in danger and peril. Also, the benevolent act of the Government in providing freebies to the poor and the needy ration card holders is being castigated and maligned and, thereby, the reputation of the Government is tarnished and defamed.
16. Though the aforesaid averments are made both in the complaint and also the counter by the 2nd respondent, however, it is to be pointed out that as on date, the Government has not filed any complaint against the petitioner in this regard. Even if the Government had filed any complaint against the petitioner for inclusion of the above scenes in the film, the same would be in direct contradistinction to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viacom's case (supra). The State, as the protector of law and order is bound to maintain law and order in a peaceful manner and cannot, to the whims and caprice of the rulers or persons acting at the behest of the rulers, act against persons, like the petitioner, who is an artists and who has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited by law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of the expressive mind. Putting shackles on the human mind from expressive thinking not only is in detriment and in derogation of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) relating to freedom of expression, but would be in direct conflict with the policies of the State in 16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 promoting arts and culture, be it in the form of visual or print.
17. Further, had there really been offensive visual representation, which had led to deterioration of law and order, the State would have exercised its power by taking appropriate action, but the State had not taken any steps to file a complaint, much less to even a file a counter in the present petition. Therefore, it could safely be concluded, without a second thought, that the State had no qualms about the visual depiction and had merely brushed it aside as an expression of the individual through visual media.
18. Further, anything portrayed in a film is not to be seen in isolation, but should be seen as a whole to find out whether there is really a mala fide intent on such visual representation. However, the complaint of the petitioner clearly shows that scene, in isolation, has been taken out and shown to be offensive, that too against the individuals and also the policies of the Government. In this context, reference may be had to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Tamilselvan & Ors. _ Vs – Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2016 (3) LW 577), wherein the Division Bench, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P. (L) No.1529 of 2016 dated 16.6.2016 (Phantom films Pvt. Ltd. - Vs – The Central Board of Film Certification), held as under :-
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 “139. In this context, reference may be made to the widespread controversy that arose out of a Hindi film Udta Punjab, wherein the challenge laid by the producers of the film to the cuts recommended by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), predominantly aimed at the cuss words used by the characters in the movie, was sustained by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in W.P. (L) No.1529 of 2016 dated 13.6.2016 (Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. - Vs – The Central Board of Film Certification) . The film highlighted the menace of drug abuse among youngsters in the State of Punjab. Some fictional characters were incorporated into the film in order to illustrate the unrestricted and unchecked movement of drugs and in that context, some of them are shown speaking in a tone and language that may not be generally associated with a cultured/refined person, and are often seen swearing at and abusing each other. The Court observed that it was not to corrupt the viewers minds, but only to present a realistic account of the issue being depicted that such scenes were inserted. The Court felt that stray sentences picked up from a few scenes, particularly dialogues delivered by the characters, could not be termed as creating a negative impact by tending to encourage, justify or glamorize the issue involved. It was observed that the total impact of the work ought to be assessed and judged, bearing in mind the underlying theme of the film. The following extract of the judgment is relevant :-
The human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity. Such scenes and dialogues have to be viewed in totality. The story must be read and 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 considered in its entirety. It is not safe to select a few words, sentences, dialogues and scenes and then to arrive at the conclusion reached by the Board. If the strata of the society and habituated to indulge freely in vulgar abuses are shown as indulging in the same without in the slightest manner glorifying them or their language, then, we do not see anything objectionable in the words. Thus, the Court was of the view that a blanket direction by the CBFC suggesting various cuts relating to the use of abusive words without reference to the theme and the subject of the film can be seen as infringing upon the artistic freedom and creativity of the film-maker. The Court observed it is important to take note of the spoken words in their entirety and understand the method of conveyance of the intended message.” (Emphasis Supplied)
19. In fact, in Phantom Films case (supra), relied on by the Division Bench of this Court in Tamilselvan's case (supra), the Central Board of Film Certification was itself barred from removing certain words/scenes from the film, which seen in isolation, were vulgar or obscene. The Court had gone on to hold that the film must be looked at on the whole and no scene or word should be seen in isolation to brand it as one which has a tendency to corrupt the minds of the viewers.
20. As already pointed out above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the 19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 decision in Viacom's case (supra), has observed that “the expression of an idea by any one through the medium of cinema which is a public medium has its own status under the Constitution and the statute. There is a Censor Board under the Act which allows grant of certificate for screening of the movies”. In the present case, the certificate having already been granted by the Central Board of Film Certification after satisfying itself about the film and the Government also having no quarrel with regard to the said scene depicted in the film, the complaint of the 2nd respondent is nothing but an attempt to dissuade the citizens from having their freedom of expression articulated under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. If acts such as the one perpetrated by the 2 nd respondent is allowed to continue by not quashing the FIR, it would send wrong signal not only to the individuals to launch attack on any expressive depiction made as a matter of creativity by any individual, but also there would be misuse of the law enforcing agency by unscrupulous persons at the helm of the governmental machinery to settle scores with any person, who does not dance to the whims and fancies of the persons in power.
21. The allegations made in the FIR does not even prima facie make out any offence u/s 153, 153A (1) (a), 505 (1) (b) and 505 (1) (c). Further, it is to be pointed out that scrutiny of any policy of the Government by the public is a right 20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 of every citizen of the country, who have their own opinion on a particular policy. In the case on hand, the opinion of the petitioner, expressed in the form of visual depiction in the particular movie, cannot be said to be an act of incitement or causing uproar amidst the general public, as it is not even the case of the 1st respondent that pursuant to the release of the film, there were large scale law and order problem and violence erupted, due to the scene portrayed in the film. An opinion of one individual may not be acceptable to another individual, but that would not be a bar for the individual to express his opinion so long as the same in no way hampers the harmony of the society. If for any contra expression, which is not to the liking of another individual, which is expressed in the form as shown in the present movie, which is the subject matter of issue, a complaint could be entertained, there would be no end to the filing of complaints and that would spell doom to the falling and failing of the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Constitution.
22. It would be apposite to quote the words of the Supreme Court in S.Rangarajan – Vs – P.Jagjivan Ram & Ors. (1989 (2) SCC 574), as hereunder :-
“However, the producer may project his own message which the others may not approve of it. But he has a right to “think out” and put the counter-appeals to reason. It is a part of a democratic give-and-take to which one could complain. The 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however hateful to its politics. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means. The democracy is a Government by the people via open discussion. The democratic form of government itself demands its citizens an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the community. The public discussion with people's participation is a basic feature and a rational process of democracy which distinguishes it from all other forms of government.” (Emphasis Supplied)
23. In the case on hand, the expression of the view of the petitioner, through the visual medium, would in no way be castigated to be a version, which was predominantly projected to incite violence amongst the general public and, thereby, to cause law and order problem and demean and defame the Government and the individuals at the helm of its affairs. The opinion expressed by the petitioner in the said movie, is his personal opinion, which squarely gets guarded under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution so long as it in no way affects the freedom of reputation of any individual. That not being the case, the FIRs registered by the 1st respondent in a casual and callous manor is nothing but spelling doomsday for the entire country, as any such act by the 1st respondent, if left to survive, would only stifle the freedom of expression and creativity 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018 envisaged under Article 19 (1) (a), which is not what the makers of our Constitution had in mind when the holy book was drafted. The personal liberty cannot be curtailed in a cavalier manner by the police, which has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. The present case falls squarely within the four corners of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and the instances highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashment of a case stand wholly attracted. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR registered by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent does not enthuse this Court to continue the same on board of the 1st respondent and it deserves quashment, as allowing the same to continue would be nothing but abdication of the powers clothed on this Court by the Constitution.
25. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed by quashing the FIR in Crime No.509 of 2018 pending on the file of the 1 st respondent police. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
23/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
Internet : Yes/No
rli/GLN
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
Chennai.
2 The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.29201/2018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli/GLN
CRL. O.P. NO.29201 OF 2018
26.07.2021
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis