IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Dinakaran Daily, Dinakaran Office, Rep. by Mohammed Israth, Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
D. Sakthivel & Others – Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 25357 of 2016 & CRL.M.P. No.12301 of 2016
Decided on : 28-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120 B and 500 - Comrades were heaping false accusations - Single word defamatory or derogatory - Respondent had contested for post of President for Thenkarai Town Panchayat from AIADMK party - 2nd respondent along with his comrades were heaping false accusations again 1st respondent in the midst of voters - 1st respondent won elections - Swearing in of 1st respondent to office of the President of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, the 2nd respondent along with elected opposition ward members created trouble in the day to day administration of said Town Panchayat. While being so, the respondents 2 to 10 in order to malign and defame 1st respondent had preferred a petition - Allegations in the said petition were false, no action was initiated - Allegation against the petitioner levelled by 1st respondent is that petitioner had published the fact regarding the said petition preferred by respondents 2 to 10 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, due to which, he was defamed - Complaint given by the 1st respondent against the petitioner was taken on file on the file of Judicial Magistrate Aggrieved by the said complaint, petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition before this Court – Held, Petitioner that petitioner as a news reporter has published only grievances which were placed before the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat and nothing defamatory was published by him against 1st respondent - Though allegations in the said publications are against the 1st respondent, it was reported only based on the petition received from respondents 2 to 10 and not by the petitioner on his own - 1st respondent himself has admitted in his complaint that it is the respondents 2 to 10 who have given a petition to the Executive Officer by making false allegations against him - petitioner herein cannot be stated as an accused and punished under Act, as he has done only his duty as a reporter and not anything against the 1st respondent - Court proceedings against petitioner are not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed - Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and quash the same.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and quash the same.
2. The 1st respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, for the offence under Sections 120 B and 500 IPC.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, on 21.10.2011, the 1st respondent had contested for the post of President for the Thenkarai Town Panchayat from AIADMK party. The 2nd respondent along with his comrades were heaping false accusations again the 1st respondent in the midst of voters. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent won the elections. After the swearing in of the 1st respondent to the office of the President of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, the 2nd respondent along with elected opposition ward members created trouble in the day to day administration of the said Town Panchayat. While being so, the respondents 2 to 10 herein in order to malign and defame the 1st respondent had preferred a petition dated 12.12.2012 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat. Since the allegations in the said petition were false, no action was initiated. The allegation against the petitioner levelled by the 1st respondent is that, the petitioner on 13.12.2012 had published the fact regarding the said petition preferred by the respondents 2 to 10 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, due to which, he was defamed. The complaint given by the 1st respondent against the petitioner was taken on file in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition before this Court.
4. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the cognizance taken and trial in C.C.No.147 of 2013 is abuse of process of law. The Lower Court failed to consider the fact that the article published on 13.12.2012 is only a news article and not a single word defamatory or derogatory is published against any one much less than the 1st respondent. The Lower Court, also failed to consider the fact that publishing of news article will not amount to defamation when the same does not reveal anything defamatory or derogatory. The news published by the petitioner is the factual happening on 12.12.2012 even as per the admission of the complainant himself. While being so, mere publication of the factual happenings without any personal imputation will not amount to defamatory statements.
5. The petitioner has further averred in the petition that the said article is published to bring to light the happenings in the council meetings and the allegations levelled against the complainant and nothing defamatory is published by the petitioner on its own. The media owes a duty to the public to keep them informed about the happenings in the country daily. Mere publications and telecast of news about the state of affairs of council meetings will not amount to an offence under Sections 120 B & 500 IPC. The main ingredients of the offence under Sections 120 B & 500 IPC is making or publishing any imputation concerning any person with criminal conspiracy. Mere publishing of news article without any defamatory or derogatory allegations against any one much less than the 1st respondent would not amount to defamation.
6. The petitioner has moreover stated in the petition that the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, without considering the above facts in a mechanical manner had taken the complaint on file as against the petitioner and issued summons for his appearance when the article and complaint itself does not make out an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.