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 relating to the proceedings in C.C. No. 36 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court to try offences against MP and MLA, Chennai and quash the same and allow this Criminal Original Petition.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 36 of 2020, on the file of the Special Court No. I of the trial for Criminal Cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravellar Maligai, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Member of Parliament, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, who made public speech in the inaugural function of newly constructed MLA Office near E.V.R. Road on 30.01.2020. During the speech, he made references with regard to the irregularities in functioning of TNPSC, at the instance of the then Minister and compared the TNPSC scam with Vyapam scam and demanded CBI enquiry. This cannot termed as defamatory statement. The TNPSC was constituted for the sole purpose of creating and nurturing a public service and the selection process to be done in independent, impartial and ethical manner with transparency gaining public confidence.

3. The sanction accorded by the Government is nothing but mala-fide and with ulterior reason, without application of mind. The complaint on file is an attempt to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and taking cognizance of the complaint is nothing but interference, with the freedom of speech, which is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to the citizen in a democratic state.

4. He further submitted that in G.O.Ms. No. 125, dated 14.02.2020, the transcripted imputation reproduced. On going through the same, nowhere the petitioner had stated anything against the then Chief Minister or any other Ministers in particular. In fact in the inaugural function, the petitioner not even mentioned the then Chief Minister’s name or any Ministers name. He further submitted that in the complaint, there is no mention about the former Minister. The petitioner did not have any intention to harm any Minister’s reputation directly or indirectly and the speech was made in good faith and not to defame the intellectual character of any Minister.

5. He further submitted that from the year 2020, the case before the trial court is kept idle without any progress. The petitioner is a former Minister in the Union Cabinet and he hails from a respectable family with legacy. He is a political personality, made certain comments and informed the public and others the sorry State of affairs, which is part of democracy process, which cannot be termed as defamatory.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the G.O.Ms. No. 125, dated 14.02.2020, the respondent City Public Prosecutor filed a complaint invoking Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner not denied addressing in the inaugural function held on 30.01.2020, which was telecasted and widely publicized in the social media. In the inaugural function, the petitioner specifically made serious imputations against TNPSC. The transcripted defamatory portion of the press meet is produced in the complaint.

7. He further submitted that the Government had issued the G.O.Ms. No. 571, Public (Law and Order-H) Department, dated 10.08.2021, on the recommendation of the Advocate General and Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras and they have opined that the defamation cases may be withdrawn as per Section 321 of Cr.P.C.

8. Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that though the Government has passed the G.O.Ms. No. 571, dated 10.08.2021, for withdrawal of the case, in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.08.2021, in the case of Ashwini Kumar