Madras High Court
V.R.Narayanan vs Chinna Veerappan on 21 July, 2010
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/07/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.4846 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 3 of 2010 1.V.R.Narayanan 2.V.R.Paramasivam 3.C.Meenal 4.Sevu.Alamelu Aachi 5.So.Kannapuram Aachi 6.T.Valliammai Aachi 7.M.Lekshmi Aachi 8.V.Muthu Aachi 9.L.Su.Meenal Aachi 10.Veera.Sundaram 11.Veera.Sevuganchettiar 12.Veera.Amirthavalli Aachi 13.L.Alamelu 14.shanmugavalli 15.T.Sivakami 16.Su.Pa.Shanthi 17.Veera.Sevuganchettiar 18.Veera.Panchanathan .. Petitioners Vs. Chinna Veerappan .. Respondent Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai and quash the same. !For petitioners... Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan ^For Respondent ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan :ORDER
The petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to call for the records relating to C.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners issued a public notice on 25.08.2009 in "Dinamalar" daily newspaper and the respondent has also given a notice on 06.11.2009 and thereafter, he filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for convicting the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C., and the learned Judicial Magistrate has also taken the complaint on file in C.C.No.62 of 2010 and initiated the proceedings. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present criminal original petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is true that the petitioners have issued a public notice on 25.08.2009 in the "Dinamalar" daily newspaper, wherein, it has been stated that without obtaining the final decree in O.S.No.371 of 1983, no co-sharer has any right to alienate the item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit property in O.S.No.371 of 1983 and if anybody purchases the same, it will not affect the petitioners' share and the documents would not be valid.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioners and if the same has to attract the petitioners, it must be satisfied that the petitioners had the intention to cause dis-reputation to the respondent and then only, the offence under Section 499 I.P.C would attract the petitioners, but here, the ingredients have not been satisfied so as to attract the petitioners.
5. He would further submit that in the public notice issued by the petitioners, it was mentioned only as "gA;fhspfs;" which means only the co- sharers who have share in the property and as such there is no dis-reputation for the respondent. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the various decisions of this Court and thus, he prayed for the allowing of the petition.
6. Repudiating the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on the date of issuance of public notice, the petitioners are having right in the property. Originally, the properties are owned by one Narayana Chettiar and he is having two sons viz., Lakshmanan and Ramachandran. Lakshmanan has three wives out of which the first wife has no issues and there is a dispute between the children of 2nd and 3rd wife of Lakshmanan. Already a suit in O.S.No.58 of 1966 has been filed before the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai for partition, against which A.S.No.191 of 1968 has been preferred before the District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai and on 17.01.1975, the said appeal was allowed and the suit for partition was dismissed. Hence, the children of the 2nd and 3rd wife of Lakshmanan are entitled to 50% share of the property. But, without knowledge of the petitioners, he filed another suit in O.S.No.171 of 1983 and preliminary decree has been passed on 23.04.1984, but without filing any application for final decree, he sold the property on 01.06.2002 in favour of one Subramaniam and hence, on the date of issuance of the public notice, the petitioners are not owners of the property and hence the ingredient of Section 499 I.P.C has been made out and thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. It is appropriate to consider the ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C, which reads as follows:
"Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be publishers 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 1. - It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2. - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. - 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."
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, TO DEFAME THAT PERSON.
9. This court perused the public notice issued by the petitioners dated 25.08.2009 in "Dinamalar" daily newspaper, which has also been admitted by the petitioners, wherein it has been stated as follows:
"nWjpepiy jPh;g;g[ bgwhkYk; BkBy fz;l 23.04.1985 jPh;g;ghizf;F tpBuhjkhft[k; ve;j gA;fhspfSk; i& gpuhJ 1 Kjy; 4 byf;f brhj;Jf;fis tpw;fj;jf;fjpy;iy. kPwp ahuhtJ fpuak; bgw;whYk; ek; fl;rpf;fhuh; tifawht[f;F cs;s ghfj;jpw;F tpBuhjkhf mit bry;yj;jf;fjpy;iy vd;Wk;*njd; Kyk; vr;rhpf;if bra;ag;gLfpwJ."
Considering the wordings used in the said notice, I am of the view that there is no imputation and also in the said notice, the name of any specific person has not been mentioned only as "gA;fhspfs;" i.e. agnate, which denotes the persons who are having shares in the male ascendants/forefathers and there is no word in the public notice to defame the respondent.
10. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In Dr.Nagarathinam Vs. M.Kalirajan reported in (2001) M.L.J.(Crl.) 647, this Court has held as follows:
"Sec.499 of the Penal code consists of the following three ingredients :
(1) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (2) such imputation must have been made by (a) words either spoken or intended to be read, or (b) by signs, or (c) visible representation; (3) such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will be harming the person concerning whom it is made. A close reading of the above Section would make it clear that the intention to cause harm is the most essential "sine qua non" of an offence under Sec.499, I.P.C. The intention to harm would mean, to harm his reputation in the estimation of others. The reputation is being lowered would come in only when the imputations are made published. Thus, it is clear that the publication with intention of harming the reputation of the person concerned to make others to know the imputation is the most important ingredient to make out of an offence under Section 500 of I.P.C.
If this Court comes to the conclusion that the complaint does not disclose the offence of defamation, it can certainly invoke inherent powers to quash such proceedings, as the case on hand would come under the rarest of rare case."
11. In K.Gnanasekharan and Another V. S.V.Ramamoorty reported in (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 796, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
"To constitute an offence under Section 499, Indian Penal code, 1860, the words spoken by a person should have been spoken intending to harm the reputation of any person or the words spoken should have been spoken knowing or having reason to believe tat such imputation will harm the reputation of another."
12. In T.Sivagnanasambandan Vs. Selvi J. Jayalalitha reported in (2003) M.L.J.(Crl.) 225, this Court has held as follows:
"The statement said to have made by the respondent in this case does not amount to an imputation that may lower the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom the alleged imputation was said to have been made.
Unless words spoken to by the respondent are held to be imputation lowering the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom those words were spoken, the person speaking those words cannot be tried for an offence of defamation."
While, considering the above said decisions, this Court is of the opinion that in the case on hand, as already pointed out in the relevant portion of the public notice issued by the petitioner in the "Dinamalar" daily newspaper, the petitioners are not having any intention to defame the reputation of the respondent. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that no prima facie case has been made out.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on the date of issuance of the public notice, the petitioners were not the owners of the property and after the matter has been settled in A.S.No.191 of 1968 on 17.01.1975, without knowledge, the suit in O.S.No.371 of 1983 has been filed. In that suit, since the respondent is also one of the defendants before the trial Court, he has every right to agitate the same. The complaint given by the respondent for the offence under Section 499 I.P.C, but as already discussed that there is no imputation, that too against any individual concerned, with the intention to harm the reputation of such person, to defame the person. Hence, I am of the opinion that the ingredient of Section 499 I.P.C. has not been made out.
14. In the above stated position, I am of the view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not merit acceptance and the criminal original petition is liable to be allowed.
15. In fine, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai is hereby quashed against the petitioners.
arul To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.