Allowed

V.Anbazhagan, M/54 v. the City Public Prosecutor

Madras HC3 Mar 2021CRL OP/4583/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition challenged the maintenance of a defamation complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor against book captions and articles. The Court held that the allegations were personal in nature and did not touch upon the conduct of the complainant in public office, failing to satisfy Section 199(2) Cr.P.C., and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.55 of 2014 are quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

V.Anbazhagan, M/54 Vs the City Public Prosecutor — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.03.2021

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH CRL.O.P.No.4583 of 2017 and CRl.MP.Nos.3465 & 3466 of 2017

V.Anbazhagan

..Petitioner/Accused

.Vs.

The City Public Prosecutor O/o. City Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104.

¶7

...Respondent/Complainant

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for the records pertaining to the private complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.55 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners: Mr.S.Kumaradevan

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 500, 501 and 501 r/w 109 IPC.

¶14

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

¶15

3.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 City 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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 petitioners will have to necessarily face the trial before the Court below and prove his innocence.

¶19

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

¶20

6.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: ?

¶21

"jkpHf murpd; 20% fkpcod; mikr;rh; ntYkzp. ek;k lha;yl; (mk;kh lha;yl;) U:/100 nfho CHy; ! . kiHePh; nrfhpg;g[ tpHpg;g[zh;t[ vd;w bgahpy; U:/4 nfho bfhs;is kw;Wk; v!;/gphpnkl;of;!; epWtdj;Jf;F tpw;fg;gl;lK 528 nghU:uhl;rpfs; !"

¶22

The said Tamil Book Kk;K:h;j;jpfspd; CHy; rhk;uh$;ak; is circulated at various parts of India, including Tamil Nadu.

¶23

5.It is submitted that the Tamil Book Kk;K:h;j;jpfspd; CHy; rhk;uh$;ak; December Edition 2014 published by Thiru.V.Anbazhagan. The said Tamil Book has cover and at page 100,34,41,58,61 and 14 with a picture of the Hon'ble Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development, Law Courts and Prisons, Thiru S.P.Velumani and caption "jkpHf murp;d; 20% fkpcod; mikr;rh; ntYkzp !! and the article contains the following allegation against the Hon'ble Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development, Law Courts and Prisons.

¶24

Cuf tsh;r;rpj; Jiwapy; cjtp ,af;Feh; gjtpapypUe;J ,iz ,af;Feh; gjtp cah;t[ nfhg;g[ ,uz;L khjk;. mikr;rhpd; nlgpspy; jh';fpaJ/ gjtp cah;t[ bgWk; 22 mjpfhhpfsplKk; jyh U:/2 ,yl;rk;. okhz;l; bra;ag;gl; ;lJ. mth;fs; mGJbfhz;nl jyh U:/1 ,yl;rk; bfhLj;jhh;fs;/ gpwF gjtp cah;t[ murhiz btspahdJ/

¶25

mikr;rh; ntYkzpaplk; muR mDkjpapy;yhky; nghyp cjtpahsuhf gzpahw;Wk; Xa;t[ bgw;w TLjy; ,af;Feh; re;jpunrfh;. efuhl;rp eph;thf

¶26

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

¶27

Mizah; mYtyfj;jpy; TLjy; ,Uf;Feuhf ,Uf;Fk; brg!;jpahd; ,UtUk; mugnd fk;bgdpa[ld; Tl;lzp mikj;J tpl;lhh;fs;/ mikr;Rk; g{k; g{k; khL khjphp jiyahl;of;bfhz;L ,Uf;fpwhh;/

¶28

mikr;rh; ntYkzp mth;fpspd;. rpwg;g[ cjtpahsh; vd;w bgahpy; bray;gLk; TLjy; ,af;Feh; (Xa;t[) re;jpunrfh;. nfhit khefuhl;rp cjtpg;bghwpahsh; ghh;j;jPgd; ,e;j Tl;lzp CHnyhL ifnfhh;j;J tpl;lhh;fs;

¶29

7.Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., provides a special 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 petitioners has rightly relied upon the judgments mentioned supra.

¶30

8.The allegations based on which the criminal 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 City 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 2014 onwards without any progress. No useful purpose will be served by keeping this complaint pending.

¶31

9.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.55 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is quashed.

¶32

10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

¶38