JUDGMENT :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C. No. 3 of 2013 pending on the file of the II Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected MPs and MLAs at Chennai and quash the same.

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 3 of 2013 pending on the file of the II Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected MPs and MLAs at Chennai and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 3 of 2013, facing trial for the offence under Section 499 and punishable under Section 500 IPC has filed this quash petition.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the ingredients to attract prosecution under Section 499 IPC is not present if the complaint taken as a whole. The sanction accorded under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. In G.O.Ms. No. 988, Public (L&O-H) Department, dated 26.11.2012, passed mechanically, without application of mind and it is bad in law. The text of imputation found in the above said G.O. if read as a whole, does not amount to any defamatory statement.

4. The respondent i.e. The City Public Prosecutor not satisfied how he is accorded sanction to prosecute when the imputation does not pertain to discharge of the official functioning of the then Chief Minister. The allegation made against the petitioner was that the petitioner made false and malicious statement, defaming then Chief Minister on 23.11.2012 in panel discussion under the caption “Nerpada Pesu” broadcasted between 21.00 and 22.00 hours in “Puthiya Thalaimurai” TV Channel, wherein D. Pandiyan Avadi Kumar, G.C. Sekhar along with the petitioner participated. The former Chief Minister supported one Udayakumar in the agitation against Kudankulam Power Plant and only because of that no electricity generated from Kudankulam Power Plant till date and the protest lasted over 1½ years, in spite of funds for infrastructure work being disposed by the Central Government, the State Government is demanding commission of 12% for executing the infrastructure works. Since no percentage could be received in Central Government Schemes such schemes are kept idle by the State Government.

5. He further submitted that the Public Prosecutor merely laid a complaint, without examining the materials on record, get satisfied the requirement of law under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The Lower Court had not perused the materials produced, independently examined the same, thereafter taken the case on file. The cognizance order is mechanical and without any reason. In view of such fundamental defect, the prosecution cannot proceed. Further in the complaint, it is no where stated, that due to the imputation caused by the petitioner and the said Minister’s reputation is directly or indirectly lowered the moral or intellect character of the then Chief Minister in estimation of others, the same was made in good faith to weed out corruption and not to defame. The petitioner exercised his fundamental right as a citizen of the country and as responsible political leader.

6. He further submitted that from the year 2012, the case before the lower court is kept idle without any progress. The petitioner is a former Minister of State in Government of India, he hails from a respectable family with legacy. He is a political personality made certain comments alerted the public and others to be aware of the corrupt practice adopted by the then Chief Minister, which is part of democratic process, which cannot be termed as defamatory.

7. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the G.O.Ms. No. 988, dated 26.11.2012, the respondent, City Public Prosecutor filed a complaint invoking Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The petitioner has not denied the panel discussion attended by him in the Puthiya Thalaimurai TV on 23.11.2012, which was telecasted and publicized. The transcript