A discharge based solely on documentary omission must be supported by a comprehensive evaluation of available evidence to ascertain culpability in defamation cases.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.9724 of 2023 Ramachandran ... Petitioner/DefactoComplainant Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.472/2020) ... Respondent/Complainant

2.Jeyarajpandian ... Respondent/Accused PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C , to call for records and set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No. 135 of 2022 in CC.No.191 of 2021 dated 08.08.2022 on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in a discharge petition filed by the accused in Cr.M.P.No.135 of 2022 in C.C.No.191 of 2021, dated

08.08.2022, this criminal revision case is filed.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the accused. The accused has been charged under Sections 385 , 500 and 506(i) of IPC based on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, who is a retired IPS Officer. The contention of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2020, the accused issued a legal notice to the defacto complainant making allegations against the defacto complainant that he had encroached and grabbed his property using his high office, attracting offences under , 500 and 506(1) of . In this regard, Crime No.472 of 2020 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station and a final report was filed on 28.12.2020 and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai in C.C.No.191 of 2021. Seeking to discharge from the said case, the accused had filed Cr.M.P.No.135 of 2022 and the same was allowed on 08.08.2022. Challenging the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only ground on which the discharge petition was allowed, was that the prosecution had failed to produce the Advocate notice, on the basis of which, the entire case of defamation has been set up by the prosecution. Categorically observing that the legal notice which is claimed to be defamatory has not been placed before the learned Trial Court so as to enable the said Court to apply its mind in framing of charge against the accused. Stating that the said document is the basic document on which the prima facie case has been made, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the discharge petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relying upon the case of Edakkandi Dineshan@ P.Dineshan & Others vs State Of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2013, submitted that on account of a defective investigation, the benefit will not inure to the accused for discharge on that ground alone. He categorically contended that it is well within the domain of the Courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses etc. Hence, the learned Trial Court ought not to have discharged the accused on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecution agency.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

submitted that it is only on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant along with the copy of the Advocate Notice, the said crime came to be registered by the 1^st respondent police. However, the learned Judicial