Madras High Court
Thiru.M.K.Stalin vs The Public Prosecutor on 21 January, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 08.10.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P(MD).No.6195 of 2019
Thiru.M.K.Stalin, M.L.A., M/a., 64 yrs.,
The President, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
Anna Arivalayam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Public Prosecutor,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and QUASH all the proceedings in
C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at
Dindigul.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,
State Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2021, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul.
2.The gist of the case is that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was the Leader of the Opposition and President of political party viz., Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. The petitioner made speech in Grama Sabha meeting held at Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugal District against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 15.02.2019. The public speech made by the petitioner is as follows:-
“//////vlg;gho gHdpr;rhkp jiyikapy;
jkpH;ehl;oy; m/jp/K/f Ml;rp xU bfhLikahd
epiyapy; ele;Jbfhz;oUf;fpwJ/
////////,g;nghJ ,Uf;ff;Toa Ml;rpia
bghWj;jtiuf;Fk; ,Uf;ff;Toa gjtpia fhg;ghw;wp
bfhs;sntz;Lk;/ gjtp ngha;tpl;lhy; bfhs;isaof;f
KoahJ gjtp. ngha;tpl;lhy; mikr;ruhf ,Uf;f
KoahJ gjtp. ngha;tpl;lhy; CHy; gz;z KoahJ
vdnt me;j gjtpapy; xl;of;bfhz;oUf;f Toa
epiyapy; jhd;//////
//////bfhs;isf;fhuh;fs; kl;Lk; my;y CHy;
bra;af;Toath;fs; kl;Lky;y nfhkhspj;jdkhf rpy
mikr;rh;fs; ,Ue;Jbfhz;oUf;fpwhh;fs; ,jw;bfy;yh k; rpfuk; itj;jhw;nghy vlg;gho ,d;iwf;F mtiu ghh;j;jPh;fs; vd;why; xU bfhiy gHp Rk;jjg;gl;l https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 epiyapy; cs;s xU Kjyikr;rh; bfhlehl;oy; 5 bfhiy bra;j vlg;gho////// /////vdnt tpiutpy; mth; rpiwf;F nghff;Toa xU R{H;epiy cUthfpf;bfhz;LUf;fpwJ/ xU bfhiyfhuUila jiyikapy; xU Ml;rp ele;J bfhz;oUf;fwpJ/ bfhiyfhuh; bfhs;isf;fhuh;
jiyikapy; elf;ff;Toa Ml;rpapy; kf;fSf;F ey;yJ fpilf;Fkh? fpilf;f tha;g;ng fpilahJ////”
3.The petitioner has made the above speech defaming the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. This defamatory speech reveals serious imputation against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and it was made only with an intention to malign his reputation while discharging his public function and duty. Hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu has accorded sanction to the respondent under Section 199(4) Cr.P.C., vide G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 05.03.2019 for filing the above complaint before the concerned Court. As against the complaint in C.C.No.1 of 2019, this petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the speech of the petitioner was made in Grama Sabha meeting held at Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugal District on 15.02.2019. In the speech, some https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 references have been made by the petitioner. The petitioner as a Leader of Opposition party in democracy, is duty bound to raise objection and criticise the steps taken by the Government which affects general public. It is the democratic duty as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The sanction accorded by the prosecution under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C., is not proper. The G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 05.03.2019, is passed mechanically, without application of mind and it is bad in law. The text of imputation found in the above said Government Order if read on a whole, will not amount to any defamation.
5.He further submitted that the respondent failed to satisfy as to how sanction for prosecution was accorded when the imputation does not pertain to discharge of any official functioning of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He further submitted that the respondent would never to be a post man and his office is not the Post office to merely lay a complaint without examining the evidence and material on record. The respondent has not verified whether the requirement of law under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., is made out. The trial Court had not independently gone into the materials produced, but merely taken the complaint on file. In view of such fundamental defects, the prosecution cannot be proceeded against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 petitioner. Further, in the complaint, it is nowhere stated that due to the imputation caused by the petitioner, the reputation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was directly or indirectly lowered the moral or intellect character in estimation of others. The public speech was made in good faith and not to defame the intellectual character of any Minister.
6.He further submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.602, dated 10.08.2021, the defamatory speech is reproduced. On going through the same, nowhere the petitioner had stated anything against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in particular. The petitioner did not have any intention to harm the then Hon'ble Chief Minister's reputation directly or indirectly. From the year 2019, the case before the trial court is kept idle without any progress. The petitioner was the Leader of the Opposition Party and President of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and he hails from a respectable family with legacy. He is a political personality, made certain comments, informed the public and others about the sorry State of affairs, which is part of democratic process and it cannot be termed as defamation.
7.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the G,O.Ms.No.177, dated 05.03.2019, the respondent has filed a complaint https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 invoking Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not denied the public speech on 15.02.2019 at Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugal District against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner with an intention to malign the reputation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made such speech at public place. The defamatory speech is extracted in the complaint.
8.He further submitted that the Government had issued the G.O.Ms.No. 602, 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.
9.Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that though the Government has passed the G.O.Ms.No.602, dated 10.08.2021 for withdrawal of the case, the Hon'ble 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”, has issued certain guidelines 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 extraneous and political considerations. The nature and gravity of the offence, its impact upon public life especially where the matters involve public funds and the discharge of a public trust is to be seen. In the case of the sitting former MPs and MLAs, directions has been issued that no prosecution case shall be withdrawn without the lieu of the High Court.
10.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 Hon'ble Apex Court had drawn guidelines with regard to Section 199(2) Cr.P.C., which provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 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 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“old Code”) which are pari materia with the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. (“new Code”).”
11.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.
12.On perusal of the Government Order and the complaint, it is seen that no such is imputation made in discharge of public function of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is found. The decision of the Hon'ble 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 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.”
13.The petitioner was the Leader of the Opposition party at the time of occurrence and the political speech made in Grama Sabha meeting. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 12 Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019 allegations made in the complaint are general in nature and no way pertains to the public functioning of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. In view of the same, the complaint filed by the respondent before the trial Court is liable to be quashed.
14.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Dindugal is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.01.2022
vv2
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Principal Sessions Court,
Dindugal.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.10 of 12
Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.11 of 12
Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
Crl.O.P(MD).No.9746 of 2019
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.12 of 12