Dismissed

S.Govindharaj v. R.v.Bhavani

Madras HC8 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/1277/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant police officer sought striking off a defamation plaint filed by the complainant in his criminal case. The court held statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not justify imputations about marital status, Section 80 CPC notice was unnecessary as the officer was sued personally, and dismissed the revision with costs and disciplinary directions.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; petitioner to pay Rs.50,000 costs by 08.01.2026; SP Tenkasi directed to suspend petitioner and conduct disciplinary enquiry; compliance reporting on 08.01.2026.

S.Govindharaj Vs R.v.Bhavani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6701 of 2025

S.Govindharaj

... Petitioner

-vs.-

R.V.Bhavani ...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.282 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Balaramesh for Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondent :Mr.T.Lenin Kumar *****

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint

¶15

in O.S.No.282 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi.

¶16

Page 1 of 9

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶19

2.Heard Mr.R.Balaramesh, learned Counsel representing Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶20

3.The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit for defamation filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.282 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi, against the Revision Petitioner/defendant.

¶21

4.In the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff has averred as follows:

¶22

"8.thjp kw;Wk; mtuJ fztUk; 28.05.2023k; Njjpad;W FLk;g ngupNahu;fs; kj;jpapy; jpUkzk; nra;J NkYk; 27.07.2023 Njjpad;W ghT+u;rj;jpuk; rg;-up[p];lu; Kd;dpiyapy; gjpT jpUkzk; nra;J nfhz;ldu;. mjw;fhd jpUkz rhd;wpjio jhf;fy; nra;fpNwhk;. thjpAk; mtuJ fztu; C .neg;NghypaDk; fztd; kidtpahf ,Ue;J tUk; epiyapy; Nkw;gb Fw;w 274 / 2023 U/S .294( b ) 506( i ) IPC vd;w tof;fpy; gpujpthjp jhd; tprhuiz mjpfhupahf ,Ue;J cs;shu;. NkYk; ,e;j tof;fpy; fle;j 29.11.2023 Njjpad;W njd;fhrp Fw;wtpay; eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gpujpthjp Fw;wg;gj;jpupf;if jhf;fy; nra;J cs;shu;. Nkw;fz;l tof;fhdJ njd;fhrp Fw;wtpay; eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; STC No. 166/2024 vd;w vz; toq;fg;gl;L Nkw;gb ePjpkd;w Nfhg;gpw;F vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Fw;wg;gj;jpupf;ifapy; 16tJ Nguhtpy; tof;fpd; RUf;fkhd cz;ikfs;. ....... ( Facts of the case ) vd;w ,lj;jpy; "tof;fpd; vjpup gthdp ghT+u;rj;jpuk; jpUney;Ntyp nkapd;Nuhl;by; mtuJ fztiu gpupe;J jw;NghJ 2tJ vjpupahd neg;Nghypad; vd;gtUld; Nru;e;J tho;e;J tUfpwhu;" vd;W gpujpthjp thf;fpakhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shu;. mjhtJ xU ngz;zpd; khdj;Jf;F gq;fk; tpistpf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w nfl;l Nehf;fj;Jld; thjp fs;s cwtpy; ,Ug;gJ Nghy; ( Living Together ) ngha;ahf rpj;jpupj;J thjpapd; ew;ngaUf;F gpujpthjp S .Nfhtpe;juh[; fsq;fk; Vw;gLj;jpAs;shu; Nkw;gb tof;fpd;

¶23

________________ Page 2 of 9_

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶26

Gfhu;jhuu; C .tre;jp kw;Wk; rhl;rpfs; thjpapd; jdpg;gl;l tho;f;ifia gw;wp $whj epiyapy; tprhuiz mjpfhupahfpa gpujpthjp S .Nfhtpe;juh[; cs;Nehf;fj;Jld; kl;LNk thjpapd; jdpg;gl;l tho;f;ifia ngha;ahf rpj;jupj;J mtJ}whf vOjpAs;shu;. gpujpthjpapd; ,e;j nray;ghLfs; Defamation Libel MFk;. gpujpthjp thjpapd; kPJ gjpT nra;j tof;fpd; vy;yh Mtzq;fisAk; jq;fs; r%fj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;fpNwhk;. jhf;fy; nra;j STC No.166/202 4 vd;w tof;F CRI OP (MD) No 3739 of 2024 khz;GkpF nrd;id cau;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpisapy; " 7. For the present, the trial in STC No 166 of 2024 is Stayed " vd;w cj;juT toq;fg;gl;L cs;sJ. fhty;Jiwapy; Ntiynra;Ak; muR mYtyu;fs; fpupkpdy; Fw;wq;fspy; <Lgl;lhy; mtu;fs; kPJ ghjpf;fg;gl;l nghJkf;fs; tof;Fj;njhlu murplk; ve;j mDkjpAk; ,Ue;J ngwj;Njitapy;iy vd;W khz;GkpF ,e;jpa cr;rePjpkd;wk; gy tof;Ffspy; Nkw;Nfhs;fhl;b jPu;g;G toq;fp cs;sJ.

¶27

9.gpujpthjpapd; nraypdhy; thjpf;F kdNtjid> cisr;ry;> njhopy; e;lk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. gpujpthjpahy; Vw;gl;l Nkw;gb rq;fjpfSf;fhf gpujpthjp thjpf;F &.15>00>000 / - ,og;gPl;L njhifia toq;fNtz;b thjp r%fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,t;tof;fpid jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu;.

¶28

...... 13.,t;tof;fpw;fhd tof;F %ykhdJ gpujpthjp thjpia 09.11.2023 md;W Neubahf fhty;epiyaj;jpy; itj;J mtkhdgLj;jpajdhy; thjp kduPjpahf kpfTk; ghjpf;fg;gl;lhu;. mjd;gpd; gpujpthjp ghT+u;rj;jpuk; fhty;epiyak; Fw;wvz; 274 / 2023 tof;fpd; Fw;wg;gj;jpupf;ifapy; mwpf;ifapd; %ykhf mtJ}whf vOjpaijj; njhlu;e;J thjpf;F kPz;Lk; kdcisr;ry; Vw;gl;L cly;uPjpahfTk; ghjpf;fg;gl;lhu;. MfNt ,e;j ,uz;L rk;gtq;fSf;Fk; e;l ,e;j tof;fpw;fhd gupfhuk; kjpg;ghd &. 15>00>000 /- j;jpw;F ePjpkd;w Kj;jpiu fl;lzkhf jkpo;ehL ePjpkd;w Kj;jpiu fl;lzk; kw;Wk; tof;F kjpg;gPl;L rl;lk; gphpT 22d; gb &. 45000 / - ePjpkd;w Kj;jpiu fl;lzkhf thjp ,j;Jld; nrYj;jpAs;shh;."

¶29

5.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the suit

¶30

itself is not maintainable, as against the Revision Petitioner, who is a Public

¶31

Page 3 of 9

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶34

Officer without issuing a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent filed the suit for damages for defamation based on the final report filed by the petitioner without considering the fact that the offence of defamation cannot be initiated on the basis of a police report.

¶35

6.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has filed the copy of the final report in Cr.No.274 of 2023, dated 29.11.2023, wherein, Paragraph No.16 has been relied upon by the respondent/defendant to file the suit for defamation against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, it is only based on the statements given by the witnesses

¶36

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a defamation suit cannot be filed against the Investigation Officer. Taking into consideration the criminal complaint or charge sheet or 161 statement recorded by the Investigation Officer, the suit cannot be maintainable and sought this Court to strike off the plaint.

¶37

Per contra , the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the imputation levelled against the petitioner/defendant is that the statement was

¶38

________________ Page 4 of 9_

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶41

made by the petitioner/defendant herein that the respondent has been separated from her husband and now residing with one C.Nepoleon, which is per se defamatory and therefore, the defamation suit has been filed. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.274 of 2023, has been stayed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3739 of 2024.

¶42

8.The only point for consideration is whether based on the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the Investigation Officer, a suit for damage can be filed and without issuing notice under Section 80 of CPC, the suit is maintainable?

¶43

9.Perusal of the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.274 of 2023 as well as the plaint filed by the respondent in O.S.No.282 of 2024, it is to be noted that only based on the statement made by the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has filed the final report and that the said act of the petitioner cannot be a ground to file a suit for defamation. However, this Court is of the view that in a criminal case filed against the respondent regarding the marital status of the

¶44

Page 5 of 9

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶47

respondent that she married or divorced or with whom the respondent is residing is not a subject matter of the criminal case and without ascertaining the marital status of an individual and even assuming that a marital status of the plaintiff that whether she is a spinster or married woman or a single woman or she is in living in relationship, it is her personal right and liberty, that cannot be questioned or demeaned by the Revision Petitioner and therefore, the contention of the Revision Petitioner that based on the statements given by the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has filed the final report mentioning the marital status of the respondent/plaintiff, cannot be accepted. When the petitioner/defendant has made such statement with regard to the marital status of the plaintiff, which according to the respondent/plaintiff is defamatory and the registration of an FIR, 161 statement recorded pursuant to the criminal case and filing of charge sheet will not absolve the respondent's vindictive attitude.

¶48

10.With regard to the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC, it is a suit filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant in the personal capacity and not under the official capacity which warrants issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC. Hence, in this case, non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC

¶49

________________ Page 6 of 9_

¶50

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

¶51

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶52

does not arise, as the suit itself is filed in the personal capacity of the defendant and not in the official capacity.

¶53

11.In view of the discussions made above, the present Revision Petition

¶54

to strike off the plaint is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be a cost of Rs.50,000/- for abuse of process of law to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on or before 08.01.2026.

¶55

12.The petitioner is working as the Sub Inspector of Police, who has no right or authority to determine the marital status of the respondent and it would only infer that the present criminal case has been instituted only to wreck vengeance against the respondent. The respondent is nobody to the petitioner and this slanderous attempt of tarnishing the image and personality of the respondent is only to threaten, blackmail, extort the respondent by abusing his position, which warrants a departmental proceedings as against the petitioner. Hence, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, to place the petitioner under suspension and to conduct a disciplinary enquiry for abuse of power.

¶56

________________ Page 7 of 9_

¶57

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

¶58

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶59

13.Post the matter "for reporting compliance" on 08.01.2026.

¶60

08.12.2025

¶61

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr To

¶62

1.The Additional District Judge, Tenkasi.

¶63

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

¶64

________________ Page 8 of 9_

¶65

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

¶66

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶67

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶68

cmr

¶69

C.R.P.(MD)No.1277 of 2025

¶70

08.12.2025

¶71

________________ Page 9 of 9_

¶72

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

S.Govindharaj v. R.v.Bhavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Govindharaj v. R.v.Bhavani

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

Santhanam Vs Kannan

Suyambulingam Vs Gandhi Muniyasamy alias Thomas Gandhi

Vinitharaj Vs Ananthapadhmanaban

Murugan Vs Muthulakshmi

Karthigaipon Vs Uma Rameswari

Kundu Ayinan (Died) 1.Periyasamy alias Duraisamy Vs Chinna Ayinan (Died)