Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M. Appavu – Appellant
Versus
R. M. Babu Murugavel, S/o. Mr. D. R. Mannu – Respondent
ORDER :
(G. Jayachandran, J.)
The petitioner herein is the present Speaker of the Tamilnadu State Assembly. He is also the sitting MLA elected from Radhapuram consitutuency as a candidate of DMK party. The respondent is former Member of the State Assembly and present Joint Secretary, Legal Wing of AIADMK party. The speech of the petitioner on 21/11/2023 at Chennai in a book release function is the subject matter of the private complaint for the offence under Sections 499 r/w 500 of IPC filed by the respondent. The Special Court at Chennai for cases against MP and MLA had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. The complaint is impugned in this petition to quash on the following grounds:-
(a) The complainant has no locus to maintain the compliant for defamation, since the alleged imputation is not against him. Neither his party AIADMK has authorised him to file the complaint on behalf of the party. There is a statutory embargo under Section 199 of Cr.P.C to take cognizance of the offence under Section 499 IPC except upon a complaint made by person aggrieved.
(b) The speech of the petitioner is neither slanderous nor malicious for to be prosecuted under Sections 499 of IP
A defamation complaint must be filed by a person aggrieved, and lack of personal injury precludes standing to sue.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.
(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamat....
Only an aggrieved party or an authorized representative can file a defamation complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and lack of authorization invalidates the complaint.
Complaint u/s 199(2) and (4) should have reasonable connection with discharge of public duties by or the office of the public servant or the public functionary.
Complaint filed by public prosecuto....
In a defamation case, the accused must have acted with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and must have made or published a defamatory statement.
Statements made without evidence that harm a public official's reputation can constitute defamation under IPC, justifying criminal proceedings.
The twits made by the petitioner did not constitute the offence of defamation under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
