Allowed

Siva. Challapandiyan v. the District Public Prosecutor

Madras HC21 Jun 2021CRL OP/13509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for defamation of the Chief Minister. The Court held that the allegations targeted personal conduct as a vote-picker, not public functions, failing to meet Section 199(2) CrPC requirements for State prosecution, leading to case disposal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowed; proceedings in C.C.Nos. 1 & 3 of 2013 quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Siva. Challapandiyan Vs the District Public Prosecutor — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.Nos. 13509 and 13510 of 2016 and CRl.MP.Nos. 6944 and 6945 of 2016

¶6

Siva. Chellapandiyan ..Petitioner (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The District Public Prosecutor Vellore District, Vellore. ...Respondent (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶9

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.13509 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records in C.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and quash the same.

¶10

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.13510 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and quash the same.

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC in C.C.Nos.1 & 3 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.

¶13

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

¶14

The complaint has been filed through the District Public Prosecutor under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C., r/w the relevant Government Orders.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken as it is, the same does not constitute defamatory allegations with respect to the act or conduct of the then Chief Minister in discharge of her public functions and at the best it can only be treated as a personal defamation. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that such a complaint cannot be maintained through the District Public Prosecutor and it does not satisfy the requirements under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl.17 and R.Avudayappan v. Muthukaruppan Public Prosecutor District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli District reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 24.

¶16

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has indulged in making wild allegations against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and thereby have defamed her name in the eyes of the general public. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in the name of freedom of press cannot make such defamatory and derogatory allegations against the former Chief Minister and the petitioner will have to necessarily face the trial before the Court below and prove his innocence.

¶17

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶18

The defamatory statements that were relied upon from the news item published by the magazine has been extracted in the complaint and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: "

¶19

In the Cover Page as: The police are government rowdies who have come to suppress the people......Two DSPs and 200 PCs were watching the spectacle with folded arms, (Ottu porukki parpanathi) the vote-picker Brahmin Jayalalitha was also watching this.....The vote-picker Jayalalitha has not visited the affected people in Dharmapuri. Will people be protected by such parpanathi Jayalalitha? If the names of castefanatics are sharpened for use against suppressed people. Will there be protection in the regime of Jayalalitha? The persons of

¶20

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

¶21

Jayalalitha's Aryaparpana gong should be uprooted.

¶22

Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., provides a special

¶23

procedure with regard to the initiation of proceedings for prosecution for defamation of a public servant. However, to maintain such a prosecution, the allegations must directly touch upon acts or conduct of the concerned servant in discharge of his or her public function. If the defamatory statement is personal in nature, this special procedure will not apply and it is only the concerned person who has to file the complaint in his or her individual capacity. The law on this issue is well settled and the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgments mentioned supra.

¶24

The allegations based on which the criminal

¶25

complaint was filed and which has been extracted supra, does not in any way touch upon the conduct of the aggrieved person in discharge of her public function. The allegation even if taken as it is, only can be construed as a personal defamation. Therefore, the complaint that was filed by the District Public Prosecutor cannot be maintained since it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. It is seen that this complaint is pending from the year 2013 onwards without any progress. No useful purpose will be served by keeping this complaint pending.

¶26

In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.1 & 3 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and accordingly, the same is quashed.

¶27