N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

An interesting question of law has arisen in these petitions, which have been filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 500 of IPC.

2. In both the cases, a criminal complaint has been filed by the Public Prosecutor for the alleged defamatory speech made against the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, in respect of her conduct in discharge of her public function.

3. The issues, which arise for consideration in these petitions are as follows :

(A) Whether a criminal complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief Minister under Section 199(2) of CrPC can be continued even after the person concerned ceases to hold the post at a later point of time?

(B) Whether the Public Prosecutor can continue to prosecute a criminal Complaint even after the death of the erstwhile Hon'ble Chief Minister without any person impleading himself or herself as the legal heir of the deceased Hon'ble Chief Minister, in order to continue the proceedings.?

(C) Whether the allegations made in the complaint against the erstwhile Hon'ble Chief Minister pertains to and is connected with the discharge of public function/official duty or the allegations are personal in nature and thereby Public prosecutor could not have maintained the criminal prosecution instituted under Section 199(2) of CrPC alleging commission of offence under Section 499 of 500 of IPC?

4. For the purpose of answering the first issue, it is important to extract the provision under Section 199(2) of CrPC, which is as follows :

"199. Prosecution for defamation :

(1) .........

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Government of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor."

5. In cases of ordinary person, a complaint should be made by the person aggrieved, and in other classes of cases, that is to say, in cases of high dignitaries where the defamation is in respect of conduct in discharge of public function, the Court of Session can take cognizance upon the complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor. It is important to note that the "person aggrieved" need not necessarily be the "person defamed".

6. It will be relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in K.K. Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, 2018 CDJ(SC) 391 with regard to the intention behind providing the special privilege under Section 199(2) of CrPC, which is as follows :

7. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant, as may be. The prosecution under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the Competent Authority in the State/Central Government under Section 199 (4) of the Code. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Sessions that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate Court. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 199(4) Cr.P.C.,