ORDER: Criminal Original Petition is to seek quashment of the chargesheet taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram in C.C.No.83 of 2005.

2. The petitioner stands charged for offences under Secs.176, 179 read with Sec.195, I.P.C., and under Sec.14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

3. That on 9.12.2004, at the premises of the office of the special investigation team designated for the investigation of Sankararaman murder case at Kancheepuram, within the jurisdiction of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, the accused, being the columnist in English and Tamil dailies and in selective Tamil magazines, with the intention to create false evidence and to side track the special investigation team from the above said murder case, wrote misleading articles in “The New Indian Express” and the same was published on 23.11.2004 with the head line “As the Sankarachariya stands like Abimanyu” at page No.9 and on 24.11.2004 as “unless the case is re-investigated, justice will not be done” at page No.9 and on 26.11.2004 “as its dead who will do the funeral, and when?” at page No.9 and also wrote in Thuklak Magazine dated 1.12.2004 and in the same magazine on 8.12.2004 as on 15.12.2004 as and on 22.12.2004 as and while questioning the act of the accused on the said date on 9.12.2004 by the Chief Investigation Officer of the said Special Investigation Team, a public servant, for clarification about his articles in order to find out the real truth if any as mentioned in his defamed articles, the said accused who is bound to answer the truth, with the intention to side track the impartial investigation by the team, want only given false and fabricated evidence and mislead answers against the truth is the charge against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner who is a reputed columnist was witch-hunted as he had written a critical article about the manner of conducting the investigation in a sensational Sankararaman murder case.

5. He would further submit that the columnist has just expressed his view about the course of investigation. The petitioner was summoned under Sec.160, Crl.P.C., to appear before the investigating sleuth relating to the disputed articles written by him in the newspapers and magazines, but he had modestly informed the investigating sleuth that he was not aware of the current day-to-day affairs of Sankaramadam.

6. He would further argue that if the charge-sheet is taken into account in the background of the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer, it does not implicate him for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner should not undergo the ordeal of trial, when there is no legal evidence available to pin him down and also when the case has been completely foisted to wreak vengeance against him, for he had provided a critical approach to the investigation of the said murder case.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused has chosen not to answer certain questions relating to certain important aspects he had dealt in the controversial articles written by him in the daily and also in the journal. It is his submission that the statement of the photographer who produced the cassette relating to the question and answer session conducted by the investigating sleuth concerning the controversial articles and the C.D. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram would go to show that the petitioner has committed various offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Press and Registration of Registration of Books Act, 1867. At any rate, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed when the investigating sleuth has prima facie come to the conclusion, based on the materials he collected that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

8. It is pertinent to extract Secs.4 and 14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for the bette

Click Here to Read the rest of this document