Allowed

Kanniyan Ramadoss @ Kaliyappan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC18 Apr 2023CRL OP/3694/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a final report in a criminal case involving allegations of sedition and enmity against other groups based on political criticism and caricatures. The court held that mere criticism of government policy without intent to incite violence or create public disorder does not attract criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the final report in CC No.1995 of 2020 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

Kanniyan Ramadoss @ Kaliyappan Vs State Rep.by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 11.04.2023

¶4

Pronounced on : 18.04.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶8

and

¶9

Crl.M.P.Nos.4172 and 4174 of 2022

¶10

1.Kanniyan Ramadoss @ Kaliyappan 2.Sivadoss @ Kovan ...Petitioners/A1 and A2

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State represented by The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Cell Central Crime Branch Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ...Respondent/Defacto complainant

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for final report dated 17.12.2020 in CC No.1995 of 2020, on the file of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the final report.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/9

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Elango

¶18

Senior Counsel

¶19

for M/s.Jim Raj Milton

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran

¶21

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petition is to quash the final report in CC.No.1995 of 2020 on

¶24

the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,

¶25

for the alleged offences under Sections 124A, 153, 505(1) (b) & (c) IPC.

¶26

It is alleged in the final report that when the defacto complainant was browsing the Internet, she came across the website vinavu.com URL http://www.vinavu.com/2015/10/01/all-pervadingliquor-pala-song/; that she found videos containing obnoxious songs with provocative lyrics which expressed hatred against the State of Tamil Nadu criticising its prohibition policy besides caricatures of the Chief Minister showing her as if she was supplying liquor to the innocent drunkards and feeding a child in her lap with a liquor bottle.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/9

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶30

Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,

¶31

submitted that the lyrics and the alleged caricatures only criticised the elected executive head of the State and cannot be a termed as an act against the State itself. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, they do not attract the offences alleged. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in (a) Vinod Dua vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 414 and (b) Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar reported in AR 1962 SC 955.

¶32

Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶33

appearing for the respondent, submitted that the lyrics composed by the petitioners were done with the malafide intention to cause irreparable damage to the Government Establishment by Law; that after the accused circulated this obnoxious videos, there were incidents of attack on TASMAC shops in various parts of the State; and that the act of the accused to cause hatred and excite disaffection towards the Government attracted the offences charged against them. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/9

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶37

5.This Court, on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the allegation is that the petitioners have criticised the Government's Prohibition Policy and had portrayed the Chief Minister in bad taste. However, the question is whether such an act would constitute the offences alleged. The Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Dua vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 SCC online 414 held as follows:

¶38

“ 56.These passages elucidate what was accepted by this Court in preference to the decisions of the Privy Council in Balagangadhar Tilak and in King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao. The statements of law deducible from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh are as follows:

¶39

a) “the expression “the Government established by law” has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. “Government established by law” is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy in the Government established by law is subverted.”

¶40

b) “any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/9

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶44

statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence”.

¶45

c) “comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.”

¶46

d) A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

¶47

e) The provisions of the Sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.”

¶48

f) “It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of the public order.”

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

5/9

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶52

g) “we propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.”

¶53

57.As the statement of law at the placetum (e) above indicates, it applies to cases under Sections 124-A and 505 of the IPC. According to this Court only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence are rendered penal.”

¶54

The above observations make it clear that unless the act of the petitioners was intended to incite violence or create public disorder, the said act would not attract the offences mentioned in Sections 124-A and 505 IPC. Merely because there were few incidents of attack on TASMAC shops, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioners was intended to cause disturbance to public order or public tranquillity. In the instant case, there is nothing in the impugned final report suggesting that the petitioners acted with that intention. The songs and the caricatures, at best were expressions of criticism of the actions of the persons in administration. For the same reasons, the offence under Section 153 IPC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶56

is also not made out. The act of the petitioners which criticises the persons in administration cannot be said to have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance to law and order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the offences alleged are not made out.

¶57

For the above reasons, the impugned final report is quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶58

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶59

18.04.2023

¶60

¶61

NCC: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Order

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

7/9

¶64

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶65

¶66

1.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶67

Egmore, Chennai.

¶68

2.The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Cell Central Crime Branch Vepery Chennai – 600 007.

¶69

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madas Chennai – 600 104.

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

8/9

¶72

Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021

¶73

SUNDER MOHAN. J, dk

¶74

Pre Delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.3694 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4172 and 4174 of 2022

¶75

18.04.2023

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

9/9

Kanniyan Ramadoss @ Kaliyappan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanniyan Ramadoss @ Kaliyappan v. State Rep.by

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

Parthasarathy Gopalan Vs Gopal Mahadevan

Balamurali Krishnan Vs the State Rep.by Its

C.Velusamy Vs the State Rep by

Vinayaka Missions Management Vs the Inspector of Police

J.N.Jahath Ramjee Vs the State Rep by

Nazeera Afzal Rahman Vs Preetha Prasad, D/O.Late.R.Manoharan