Allowed

Dr.S.Ramadoss v. the Public Prosecutor

Madras HC20 Mar 2015CRL OP/28017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a petitioner. The court held that prosecution by the Public Prosecutor under Section 199(2) CrPC for imputations in an interview was not maintainable as no direct allegation was made against the Chief Minister, only against party personnel.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2013 initiated against the petitioner are quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Dr.S.Ramadoss Vs the Public Prosecutor — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.28017 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶6

Dr.S.Ramadoss Founder Leader, Pattali Makkal Katchi Thailapuram, Vanur Taluk, Villpuram District. ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Public Prosecutor, District and Sessions Judge Court, Villupuram. ...Respondent

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for records in C.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villpuram and to quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Narayanan for M/s.K.Balu

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villpuram.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the Public Prosecutor, attached to District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, initiated proceedings against the petitioner, in C.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, on the basis of the interview given by the petitioner in Makkal Katchi T.V., wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner made derogatory remarks with an intention of damaging the AIADMK Party, and their leader, the Hon'ble

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and these words were unfounded, and without any basis, and therefore, the petitioner has committed offence under Section 499 IPC, punishable under Section 500 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the substance of the interview has been incorporated in the complaint, in para No.5, and it cannot be stated that such passage incorporated in the complaint will make out any case punishable under Section 499 IPC and no allegation has been made against the Hon'ble Chief Minister and allegations were made only against the party people. Hence, the complaint filed at the behest of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent submitted that, though there was no reference to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, in the passage mentioned in the complaint, the petitioner made allegations against the party people, which in turn would reflect the conduct of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, and therefore, case has been filed against the petitioner.

¶18

The statement of the petitioner given in the interview, which formed the basis of prosecution is as follows:-

¶19

" m/jp/K/f itr; nrh;e;j Kd;dhs; rl;lg;nguit cWg;gpdh; uhkb$ak;. ,t';fbsy;yhk; nrh;e;Jjhd; jpl;lkpl;Ljhd;. vg;go jhf;fZk;. vd;d bra;aZk;. vd;d khjphp ehlfkhlZk;. vg;go mt';fis me;jg; gf;fk; nghftplhk gz;zZk;wJjhd; jpl;lk; nghl;L. mij ey;yh mu';nfw;wpapUf;fh';f ” “ .......... MdhYk; bry;tuh$pd; kfidj;jhd; re;njfj;jpw;flkhd rht[ vd;Wk;. tpntf;fpd; kuzj;ij tpgj;J vd;Wk; Twp fhty;Jiw kiwf;fg;ghh;f;fpwj/ .......... ” “ ........./ rjp Mnyhrid gw;wp Kd;Tl;ona g[fhh; mspf;fg;gl;Lk;. kpft[k; myl;rpakhf bray;gl;l fhty;Jiw kuf;fhzj;jpy; ,uz;L fhtyh;fis kl;Lnk ghJfhg;g[f;F epWj;jpahft[k; mth; bjhptpj;jhh;/ tpGg;g[uk; khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; kndhfud; kPJk; kw;w fhty;Jiw mjpfhhpfs; kPJk; j';fSf;F ek;gpf;if ,y;iy/ .......... ” “......... khky;yg[uk; khehL eilbgw;Wf;bfhz;oUf;Fk; nghnj. jkf;F mspf;fg;gl;oUe;j ghJfhg;g[ jpUk;gg; bgw;Wf;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ bjhlh;ghf fhty;Jiw tpsf;fkspf;f ntz;Lk;/ ......... ”

¶20

I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. As per Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed against a person, who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

Union Territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, upon a complaint in witting by the Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Therefore, the sine qua non, for initiation of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor is there should be allegation against the Minister of the State. A reading of the passage enclosed in para No.5 of the complaint does not disclose any allegation against the Hon'ble Chief Minister, thereby, marring her reputation, and it is only alleged that the Police are not giving necessary protection for the Mamallapuram Conference conducted by the petitioner. As no allegation was made against the Hon'ble Chief Minister, initiation of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor is not maintainable.

¶24

For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Original Petition
is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in
C.C.No.3 of 2013, are quashed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are
closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
Dt:30/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Villpuram
2. The Public Prosecutor,
District and Sessions Judge Court,
Villupuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. SR 16175
kgk(co)
prk31/3
Crl.O.P.No.28017 of 2013

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dr.S.Ramadoss v. the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Ramadoss v. the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

E.Sukumaran Vs Ramesh Babu

Vs

C.J.Francis Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Shanmugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Shonthosh Vs State Rep by