ORDER: A private complaint under Sec. 500, I.P.C. was filed by the complainant Mr. Ramajayam, the respondent herein against five accused including the petitioners 1 and 2 before II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. All the five accused filed a petition to drop the proceedings as against them raising several grounds. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners (A-1 and A-2) have preferred this revision.

2. According to the complainant, in a proceeding before the three forums challenging the order of retrenchment of the complainant by the management of the accused, a detailed counter statement was filed by them on 29.7.1989, 6.1.1994 and 17.2.1995 containing defamatory allegations against the complainant and therefore, the accused persons who are connected with the management are liable to be punished for the offence under Sec. 500, I.P.C.

3. According to the petitioners/accused 1 and 2, the proceedings arising out of the said complainant are to be dropped on three grounds:

(1) The complaint is barred by limitation.

(2) The accused are protected under Exceptions 8 and 9 to Sec.499,I.P.C.

(3) The counter dated 17.2.1995 being a third publication was filed by A-3 alone and not by others. There are no specific allegations against A-1 and A-2. The other accused namely A-4 and A-5 have nothing to do with either of the publications nor connected with the management.

4. The trial Court accepting the contention of the complainant that these factors could be dealt with only during the course of trial, rejected the prayer of the petitioners and other accused.

5. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners would elaborate these three points and cited several authorities to buttress his submissions.

6. With equal vehemence, the complainant who is the party-in-person, would contend that the revision could not be entertained, as the impugned order is perfectly valid in law.

7. The counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant/party-in-person in addition to their oral submissions have filed written submissions.

8. In his context, it is noticed that though the complainant is represented by an Advocate before the lower Court, he has not chosen to engage a Lawyer before this Court on his behalf.

9. In view of the legal questions raised before this Court by the counsel for the petitioners through oral submissions and written submissions, this Court thought it fit to nominate Mr. Malarvannan as amicus curiae to assist the Court with reference to both legal and factual aspects. Accordingly, Mr. Malarvannan made oral submission and also filed typed set containing various citations both for and against.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, the party-in-person and the amicus curiae. I have also gone through the revision grounds, affidavit filed by both the parties, written arguments and the various citations submitted by the parties.

11. Before going to the questions involved, let us go into the contents of the complaint in question and the sworn statement recorded thereon. The gist of the same is as follows:

"(i) The complainant was working as a Journalist in the newspaper "Thina Thanthi" from the year 1962 for 19 years i.e. from 30.10.1962 to 9.6.1981. In the month of June, 1980, he was illegally transferred from Tirunvelveli "Thina Thanthi" to Coimbatore "Thina Thanthi" as a punishment. Since the salary arrears were not paid in time, on 9.6.1981, the complainant met the second accused, namely Director and Controller of "Thina Thanthi" at Madras and demanded the legitimate wage raise. The employer (A-2) demanded his resignation. As he refused to give the same, he was retrenched on 9.6.1981.

(ii) On 10.6.1981, he was appointed as Feature Editor of "Varandhira Rani" a magazine controlled by A-2. Even there, the salary, was not paid regularly. The complainant requested to post him back to "Thina Thanthi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document