JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J 1. Leave granted in all the cases.

2. The appellant is a well known actress who has approached this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her. As many as 23 Criminal Complaints were filed against her, mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu, for the offences contemplated under Sections 499, 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’] and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 [hereinafter ‘Act 1986’]. The trigger for the same were some remarks made by the appellant in an interview to a leading news magazine and later on the same issue was reported in a distorted manner in another periodical. Faced with the predicament of contesting the criminal proceedings instituted against her in several locations, the appellant had approached the High Court of Madras, praying for the quashing of these proceedings through the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter ‘Cr.PC.’]. The High Court rejected her plea vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2008. At the same time, in order to prevent the inconvenience of litigating the same subject-matter in multiple locations directed that all the cases instituted against the appellant be consolidated and tried together by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Chennai). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant approached this Court by way of a batch of Special Leave Petitions.

3. Before addressing the legal aspects of the case before us, it would be useful to examine the relevant facts. In September 2005, ‘India Today’ a fortnightly news magazine had conducted a survey on the subject of the sexual habits of people residing in the bigger cities of India. One of the issues discussed as part of this survey was the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex. As a part of this exercise, the magazine had gathered and published the views expressed by several individuals from different segments of society, including those of the appellant. The appellant expressed her personal opinion wherein she had noted the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex, especially in the context of live-in relationships and called for the societal acceptance of the same. However, appellant had also qualified her remarks by observing that girls should take adequate precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of venereal diseases. This can be readily inferred from the statement which was published, a rough translation of which is reproduced below:

“According to me, sex is not only concerned with the body; but also concerned with the conscious. I could not understand matters such as changing boyfriends every week. When a girl is committed to her boyfriend, she can tell her parents and go out with him. When their daughter is having a serious relationship, the parents should allow the same. Our society should come out of the thinking that at the time of the marriage, the girls should be with virginity.

None of the educated men, will expect that the girl whom they are marrying should be with virginity. But when having sexual relationship the girls should protect themselves from conceiving and getting venereal diseases.”

These remarks were published alongside a survey, the relevant extracts of which are stated below:

“Will you marry a person who had relationship with others ?

18% - Yes, 71% - No

Is it necessary to be a virgin till the time of marriage ?

65% - Yes, 26% - No

The remaining percentage of people said:

Do not know/Cannot say

82% women had given an opinion that a girl should be a virgin at the time of marriage.”

4. Subsequently, ‘Dhina Thanthi’, a Tamil daily carried a news item on 24.9.2005 which first quoted the appellant’s statement published in ‘India Today’ and then opined that it had created a sensation all over the State of Tamil Nadu. This news item also reported a conversation between the appellant and a