Allowed

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

Madras HC3 Mar 2021CRL OP/4584/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. for defamation against a former Chief Minister. The Court held that the alleged defamatory statements regarding the petitioner's qualifications and personal experience did not touch upon her official public functions, rendering the special procedure inapplicable and the complaint maintainable

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai were quashed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were 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

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH CRL.O.P.No.4584 of 2017

¶4

and CRl.MP.Nos.3467 & 3468 of 2017

¶5

V.Anbazhagan ..Petitioner

¶6

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

¶7

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.11 of 2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumaradevan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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 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

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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: ? "

¶19

"mikr;rh; tp$agh!;fh; kpul;ly; ! lhf;lh; mwpbthsp jw;bfhiy !" in the Tamil Book " I/V!; mjpfhhpfspapd; CHy;; uh$h';fk;. fhrneha; Jiwapy; cs;s 660 gzpl';fis njh;t[ bra;a[k; mjpfhhp lhf;lh; mwpbthspjhd;. 660 gzpapl';fspy; kUj;Jt mjpfhhp fhrneha; bry; vd;w gzpaplj;Jf;F vk;/gp///gpv!; Koj;Jptl;L.

¶20

1.DIPLOMA/MD PUBLIC HEALTH/TUBER CULOSIS & CHEST DISEASES

¶21

2.ONE EAR EXPERIENCE IN RNTCP

¶22

3.BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTERS

¶23

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

¶24

,jpy; mDgtk; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ Rfhjhuj;Jiw mikr;rh; tp$agh!;fh; 14/2/15 lhf;lh; mwpbhspia miHj;J "RNTCP" mDgtk; ,y;yhj lhf;lh; xUtiu

¶25

Through TOR (Term of Reference) only eligible candidates are called for written examination and interview, if the candidates are not eligible they will be rejected.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 2015 onwards without any progress. No useful purpose will be served by keeping this complaint pending.

¶28

9.In the result, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and accordingly, the same is quashed.

¶29

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

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

KP
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The City Public Prosecutor
O/o. City Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Buildings,
Chennai-600 104.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.S.Kumaradevan, Advocate Sr.NO.13405
CRL.O.P.No.4584 of 2017
PL(CO)
NR 21/04/2021

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Manikandan Vs G.Balasubramaniam

P.Parimaladevi Vs State Rep by

G.Mahaveer Chand Bafna Vs State Rep by

Ayyanar Vs State Rep.by

M/S.Thirupathi Brothers, Vs a.M.Manoji

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