JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.22 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.22 of 2015, pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai/trial Court.

2. The petitioners/A2 to A4, who are facing trial in C.C.No.22 of 2015, for offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, have filed this quash petition.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the ingredients to attract prosecution under Section 499 IPC is not present if taken the complaint as a whole. The sanction accorded by the prosecution under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C., is not proper. The G.O.Ms.No.835, Public (Law and Order-H) Department, dated 03.07.2015, is passed mechanically, without application of mind and it is bad in law. The text of imputation found in the above said Government Order if read on a whole, will not amount to any defamatory statement.

4. Further contention is that the respondent/the City Public Prosecutor has not satisfied as to how sanction for prosecution accorded when the imputation does not pertain to discharge of the official functioning of the then Highways and Minor Ports and Forest Minister Edappadi K.Palanisamy. He further submitted that the respondent is never to be a post man and his office is not the Post office to merely lay a complaint without examining the evidence and material on record. The respondent has not verified whether the requirement of law under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C., is made out. The trial Court had not independently gone into the materials produced and merely taken the complaint on file. In view of such fundamental defects, the prosecution cannot be proceeded against the petitioners. Further, in the complaint, it is nowhere stated that due to the imputation caused by the petitioners directly or indirectly lowered the moral or intellect character of the Minister in estimation of others. The interview was made in good faith and not to defame the intellectual character of any Minister.

5. He further submitted that from the year 2015, the case before the trial court has been pending, without any progress. The petitioners are the Managing Director/New Editor, Chief Executive Officer and Chief News Editor of Kalaignar Television, Teynampet, Chennai and they hail from respectable family with legacy. Dissemination of information to the general public is a duty of the press and the petitioners have no intention to defame the said Minister as alleged by the respondent.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of the G.O.Ms.No.835, Public (Law and Order-H) Department, dated 03.07.2015, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC invoking Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners have not denied the interview telecasted by them in Kalaignar Television on 07.04.2015 and 08.04.2015. In the interview, A1 had specifically named Edappadi K.Palanisamy, Minister and Thoppu Venkatachalam, Minister are indulging in corrupt practice on a daily basis and further, the said Edappadi K.Palanisamy is acting as a “Kuruvi”. The transcripted defamatory portion of the interview is produced in the complaint. The petitioners without verifying the speech made by A1 telecasted the same in Kalaignar Television. Thus, the interview impeaches the reputation of the said Ministers.

7. He further submitted that the Government had issued the G.O.Ms.No.518, 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.518,