Allowed

V.Shanmugaiah v. S.Vanchinathan

Madras HC15 Oct 2020CRL OP(MD)/1660/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Court quashed the impugned private complaint instituted under Section 500 IPC against the petitioners for defamation. The court ordered quashal after the petitioners expressed unconditional regret for using defamatory and intemperate expressions regarding the complainant, upon which the respondent also stated they were not pressing the complaint. Petitioners were warned against future u

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceedings in S.T.C.No.5601 of 2019 and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

V.Shanmugaiah Vs S.Vanchinathan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1660 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1660 of 2020

¶7

& MP(MD)Nos.782 & 847 of 2020

¶8

Dr.V.Shanmugaiah, Assist. Professor, Dept. of Micro Biology, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶9

Dr.M.Pandi, Assist. Professor, Dept. of Molecular Micro Biology, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶10

Dr.Lillys Thivagar, Profession & HOD, Dept. of Mathamatics, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶11

K.Arivazhagan, Superintendant, Public Relation Officer(Incharge), Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶12

P.Muthupandi,

¶13

Clerk,Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶14

J.Rajesh Kannan, CPCLR Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶15

S.Ramu, CPCLR Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1660 OF 2020

¶19

C.Pitchai, CPCLR Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶20

P.Natarajasundram, Clerk at Examination Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶21

K.Rajendran, Clerk at Posting Department IV, Madurai Kamarajar University, Maduai.

¶22

M.Palpandi, Superintendant, Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶23

T.Padmavathy,

¶24

CPCLR Research Department, Madurai Kamarajar University, Madurai.

¶25

C.Raja ... Petitioners/Accused

¶26

Vs.

¶27

S.Vanchinathan ... Respondent/ Complainant

¶28

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.5601 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and quash the same.

¶29

For Petitioners : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Veera Associates. For Respondent : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai * * *

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the impugned proceedings in S.T.C.No.5601 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

¶32

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

¶33

2/6

¶34

3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1660 OF 2020

¶35

It is a private complaint instituted by the respondent against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. The case of the respondent is that the petitioners herein have sent a complaint against him to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai and also circulated the contents thereof in the University campus. In the said pamphlet circulated by the petitioners and also in the complaint given by the petitioners, the complainant has been described in highly defamatory terms. The complainant has been alleged to be having contacts with Naxalite organisations and that he is indulging in anti-national activities.

¶36

Even before the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would commence his arguments, I made it clear that the language employed by the petitioners herein is unacceptable. The learned Senior counsel also was fair enough to state that the petitioners expressed their unconditional regret for the employment of the offending expressions. The petitioners are withdrawing the said allegations made against the complainant. Since the petitioners have come forward to express their unconditional regret, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions of the complainant states that he is not pressing the impugned private complaint.

¶37

In view of the stand now taken by the complainant, I quash these impugned proceedings. I however warn the petitioners against employing such intemperate expressions when they draft their memorandum in future.

¶38

This criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

pmu

¶43

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶44

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

¶45

3/6

¶46

4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.1660 OF 2020

¶47

To:

¶48

The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

¶49

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-20273[F] dated 16/10/2020 )

¶51

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1660 of 2020 15.10.2020

¶52

VB (03.11.2020) 4P 4C

¶53

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

¶54

4/6

V.Shanmugaiah v. S.Vanchinathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Shanmugaiah v. S.Vanchinathan

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

The Superintendent of Police Vs Liyakath Alikhan

Sabapathi Vs The Superintendent of police

Lingadurai Vs The Inspector of Police

T. Dharmaraj Vs the District Collector

H.Amalan Rajiv Boniboss Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Sobana Vs The Inspector of Police