Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Malar Publications Private Limited and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
R.Sevvilamparithi - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.15685 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 28-03-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499, 500 and 502 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 193 and 199 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - Section 198 - Offence of Defamation - Learned Senior counsel for petitioners submitted that impugned complaint against community of advocates cannot be termed to be defamation as against advocates community in general - He further submitted that article does not expressively name respondent herein as person responsible for facilitating to present a fake wife and fake lawyers before concerned Court for obtaining divorce for Engineer - Even otherwise complainant cannot claim himself to be a leading advocate - By relying on various judgments learned Senior counsel submitted that a reference to a community of advocates alone may not be sufficient to make out an offence of defamation and that such a collection of person must be an identifiable body with definiteness and since impugned article does not specifically implicate complainant offence has not been made out - Held, Whether complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of publication is a matter to be determined by court depending upon facts of each case - If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of company and hence he can legitimately feel pinch of it - Similarly if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on offensive trade every working partner of firm can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it - If Hospital is a private limited company it is too farfetched to rule out any one of its Directors feeling aggrieved on account of pejoratives hurled at company - Hence appellant cannot justifiably contend that Director of Hospital would not fall within wide purview of some person aggrieved as envisaged - I am unable to agree with submissions made by learned counsel for respondent - As stated in my findings above an identifiable group of person could be lawyers of Karamadai but cannot be distinguishably identified as popular lawyers of Karamadai - Likewise further submission of learned counsel for respondent that in view of explanation complainant/respondent is deemed to be a person aggrieved also may not be tenable - Explanation envisages to mean and include an imputation to a collection of person as defamation - Since popular lawyers of Karamadai cannot be said to be an identifiable collection of persons respondent herein may not be an aggrieved person to maintain complaint - Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
1. The first petitioner herein is a Tamil Newspaper namely, Daily Thanthi and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the Editors and Printers of another Tamil Newspaper namely, Malai Malar respectively. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused in a private complaint for offences under Sections 499 to 502 IPC, for having published an alleged defamatory article. The petitioners herein now seek to quash the private complaint.
2. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.B.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the complaint is that there was a news item on 10.12.2011 in the Tamil Daily “Malai Malar” which stated that an Engineer was granted divorce through impersonation of a lady as his wife and a leading lawyer from Karamadai near Coimbatore was implicated of being responsible for arranging the fake wife and fake lawyer in the said case. Since the complainant herein is a leading lawyer ordinarily practicing in the Courts of Karamadai, he had lodged the present complaint on the ground that the said news article has defamed his reputation and therefore sought for punishing the petitioners herein for offences under Sections 500 and 502 IPC.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned complaint against the community of advocates cannot be termed to be defamation as against the advocates community in general. He further submitted that the article does not expressively name the respondent herein as the person responsible for facilitating to present a fake wife and fake lawyers before the concerned Court for obtaining the divorce for the Engineer. Even otherwise, the complainant cannot claim himself to be a leading advocate at Karamadai. By relying on various judgments, the learned Senior counsel submitted that a reference to a community of advocates alone may not be sufficient to make out an offence of 'defamation' and that such a collection of person must be an identifiable body with definiteness and since the impugned article does not specifically implicate the complainant, the offence has not been made out.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent herein on the other hand submitted that Karamadai is a small hamlet consisting of a very few advocates and that the respondent alone is a leading advocate in Karamadai and therefore the article implicates the complainant. In view of the defamatory words used in the article, the news item has brought harm to his reputation and therefore the article clearly falls within the meaning of defamation under Section 499 IPC. The learned counsel also relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the complaint clearly makes out an offence of defamation against the petitioners herein and as such, grounds raised by the petitioners herein needs to be established during the course of trial and therefore the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not be invoked.
6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.
7. Before addressing the various grounds raised by both the counsels, it would be appropriate to refer to the news article which is the subject matter of the private complaint.
8. The news item came to be published in the Tamil Daily “Malai Malar” on 10.12.2011 states that, one Sivakumar had engaged fake lawyers and a fake lady as his wife and obtained the divorce order for contracting a second marriage. The article further goes to report that the said Sivakumar had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to a popular lawyer in Karamadai Village near Coimbatore for the purpose of engaging a fake lawyer and a fake wife for Sivakumar. It is this article which had given a cause of action for the complainant to file the impugned complaint, on the ground that, he is a popular lawyer in Karamadai village and therefore the article has caused harm to his reputation.
9. It is not in dispute that the news article does not specifically m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
