Advocates:
['R NEELAKANDAN', '', 'RAJ THILAK E', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.23780 of 2018 &

Crl.M.P.Nos.13444 & 13446 of 2018

M.K.Stalin

...

Petitioner

Vs.

The Public Prosecutor,

Representing the Government

of Tamilnadu.

...

Respondent

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying to

quash all the proceedings in C.C.No.17 of 2018 on the file of

the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

For petitioner

: Mr.Raj Thilak E

For respondent

: Mr.A.Natarajan,

Public Prosecutor, Assisted by

Mr.Md.Muzammil, G.A.(Crl.side)

*****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the complaint taken on

file by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli has taken on file

the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor as against the

petitioner in C.C.No.17 of 2018 for making alleged imputation as

against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner that the alleged statement made by the

applicant noway amounts to defamation as against the then Chief

minister affecting the public function. At the most, it amounts

only a criticism for which the petitioner cannot be prosecuted

under Section 500 of I.P.C. Further, it is also stated that

G.O.Ms.No.705, dated 7.8.2012 issued by the Public (Law and

Order -H) department according sanction to prosecute the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner itself has been quashed by this Court in a batch of

writ petitions in W.P.Nos.25377 and 25378 of 2013, etc., dated

21.5.2020. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.17 of 2018

pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Tiruchirapalli is liable to be quashed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the

statement is one of the defamative imputation caused damage to

the public authorities or State is a matter of trial, cannot be

decided at this stage in a quash petition. Further contention

is that an appeal has been filed against the order passed by

this Court quashing the said G.O., in a batch of writ petitions

in W.P.No.25377 and 25378 of 2013, etc., dated 21.5.2020.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and

perused the materials available on record.

5. On a perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the

statements made by the applicant in the complaint is just like a

criticism. The imputation alleged to have been made by the

petitioner in my considered view is a criticism and at no

stretch of imagination, amounts to defamation against the then

Chief Minister in discharge of her official function and they

are only personal in nature.

6. Already, this Court in a batch of writ petition in

W.P.No.W.P.No.25377 and 25378 of 2013, etc., dated 21.5.2020,

extensively examined and analyzed the scope of Section 199 (2)

Code of Criminal Procedure along with Sec.199 (6), Exceptions

under Section 499, penal provisions under Sec. 500, 501 and 502

of I.P.C., Procedure for prosecuting the criminal defamation

offences prescribed under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., the law of

Criminal defamation, Role of the Public Prosecutor and his

duties and Duties of the Magistrate/ Sessions Judge while taking

cognizance of a private complaint, Freedom of expression, etc.

Be that as it may.

7. It is also submitted that to constitute an offence under

Section 500 of I.P.C., against the constitutional functionaries

or the Minister of State, it has to be established by the

prosecution that the alleged imputation made in respect of the

conduct of a public servant/public functionary in discharge of

his/her public functions and the public function stands on a

different footing than the private activities of a public