Held that the present revision challenging an order dismissing a private complaint for defamation had no merit as the facts revealed a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense. No illegality or irregularity was found in the lower court's approach.
The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal R.C. No.123 of 2014
Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Ravichandran 2. Palaniammal 3. Duraisamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order dated 11.09.2012 made in C.M.P.No.4360 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondents : Mr.N.Umapathi ORDER
Challenging the order dated 11.09.2012, dismissing the petitioner's private complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C., the present revision has been filed.
2.The petitioner earlier filed a private complaint for an offence under section 500 IPC against the respondent herein. The above complaint has been filed on the ground that a patta was granted to petitioner in Natham Settlement Scheme, and he had applied to the Government for subsidy, for the purpose of constructing a concrete house under a Government scheme in the above property. The respondents herein claiming to be the owners of the property by virtue of court decree, had given a complaint to the Revenue Officers not to grant any subsidy to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner's property is not a subject in the Civil Court decree, but deliberately they prevented the authorities from getting subsidy to the petitioner for putting a house. Because of that, he was defamed and his reputation is spoiled and hence he filed a complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of offence considered the complaint, and the sworn statement and the evidence of the petitioner and come to a conclusion that there
is no prima facie case made against the respondent. Hence, he dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3.Heard Mr.S.Kalyanaraman, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.Umapathi, Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.
5.Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that from the complaint and sworn in statement and other evidences, no prima case was made out against the petitioner, and absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was defamed by the Act of the respondent but it is only a civil dispute between the parties and the petitioner had given a criminal colour to it. The court below after considering all the materials rightly dismissed the complaint.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsels on either side and perused the materials on record.
8.So far as the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Court below has gone into the merit of the case and dismissed the complaint and the Judicial Magistrate only considered the complaint and the evidence and comes to a conclusion that there is no ground available to proceed against the respondent, hence, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be considered.
9.The Court below considering the entire materials had come to a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. I have also carefully considered the materials on record and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
kv/rm
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Namakkal.
+1cc to M/s.N.Umapathi,Advocate sr.22530
+1cc to M/s.S.Kalyanaraman,Advocate sr.22587
Criminal R.C. No.123 of 2014
nrII(co)
ss(4/5/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the private complaint attracted punishment for giving false evidence warranting a revision.
Whether the lower court erred in going into the merits of a civil dispute in criminal proceedings.
Whether there was any illegality or irregularity in the order dismissing the complaint.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Palanisamy
Ravichandran
Palaniammal
Duraisamy
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
