IMPORTANT POINT
Criticism of government actions, even if harsh, does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC if it does not incite violence or disturb public peace.

ORDER :

(G. Jayachandran, J.) :

The petitioner herein is a sitting Member of Parliament and former Minister. He belongs to AIADMK party, who is in opposition as on date.

2. On a complaint given by a Member of DMK party, the case was registered under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 506(1) of IPC on 06.10.2022 for an alleged utterance made by the petitioner among the party men on 27.08.2022 in a hunger strike organised by his party. The said complaint in Crime No.381 of 2022 is sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner being maliciously victimised for being vociferous against the Ruling Party for its misdeed and misrule. The ingredient of the offence under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), 506(1)of IPC will not get attract for the speech delivered by the petitioner. The registration of the complaint defeat the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. Expressing dissent for inaction of the Government, failure to curtail the crimes and violation cannot be construed as insight violation or provoking enmity between different groups. The hunger strike organised to expose inefficiency of the Government will fall under a reasonable criticism, which is permissible in democracy. The Meeting has not caused any hindrance or disturbance to the public peace. The fact that the complaint came to be registered 40 days after the occurrence on consultation of the party members, is sufficient to hold that it is a politically motivated complaint. Further, after the alleged occurrence of insight speech, on 27.08.2022, there was no untoward incident, which could attract the offences under Sections 153-A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 506(1) of IPC.

3. Relying upon the parameter laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. And others reported in MANU/SC/3152/2006: 2006(4)CTC 60, and State of Haryana v. BhajanLal reported in [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335], the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is a fit case to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. In the written arguments submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the following judgments are relied:-

(1) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra [(2024)4 SCC 156];

(2) Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya,[(2021)15 SCC35:2021 SCC Online SC 258];

(3) Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., [(2023)4 SCC 1]

(4) Shreya Singhal [Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1:(2015)2 SCC(Cri)449];

(5) Mohammad Wajid and Ors. v. State of U.P. And Ors.[(2023) SCC Online SC 951];

(6) Sharif Ahmed and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2024)SCC Online 726]

(7) Chanchalapathi Das v. State of West Bengal [(2023) SCC Online 5C 650]

(8) Maneesha Yadev and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2024)SCC Online SC 643] and

(9) Neeharika Infrastructure (p)ltd v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401].

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner herein, a sitting Member of the Parliament and former Minister had not maintaining decorum and dignity of the office he holds. On 27.08.2022, while participating in the hunger strike organised by his party at Tindivanam near Gandhi Statue for protesting the scheme of converting sea water into drinking water, the petitioner along with one Murugamaran, former MLA and others participated, in which the said Murugamaran abused in filthy language about Mr.K.Ponmudi and Mr.Masthan, both were Ministers and Mr.M.K.Stalin, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Following the speech of said Mr.Murugamaran the petitioner in his speech called Chief Minister Mr.M.K.Stalin, as inefficiency person and collected commission of 10% to 20% for the government work, ganja sold in schools and the department of school education turned into the department of sexual abuse. Inspite of granting Rs.1602crores, the Chief Minister is not capable of completing the project. Neither Mr