SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Shamim Ahmed, J
Shanmugavalli – Appellant
Versus
Ramanathan @ Annamalai – Respondent
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1440 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Arputharaj

The application under Section 222 of BNSS must be filed in the Sessions Court when involving public servants' conduct during official duties.

Headnote:The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, which was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 222 of BNSS and upheld the lower court's findings regarding maintainability. The case addressed defamation directed at a public servant in their official role. The court ruled that the application must be filed before a Sessions Court, substantiating this with statutory reference. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations against public servant. (Para 2 , 3)
2. magistrate's order challenged. (Para 4)
3. jurisdiction determined by official duties. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
4. criminal revision petition dismissed. (Para 9)

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.Arputharaj, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Since the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondents is dispensed with.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner to set aside the the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

a) The Revision Petitioner has been working as the Secretary at Illangudi Village Panchayat for 16 years. The Respondents have been disseminating false and defamatory allegations against her, abusing her regarding her differently abled body and her caste. On 23.11.2024, they attacked her, causing injuries, and abused her with filthy words. She made a complaint to the police, but no action was taken. The Respondents have also defamed her on social media, including WhatsApp and Facebook, and affixed posters with defamatory allegations in public places. Despite receiving a legal notice, they continue to defame her.

b) The Revision Petitioner filed an application under Section 222 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai, seeking to take cognizance of the offence under Section 356(2) of BNS. The Court below, vide order dated 20.08.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that the application filed under Section 222 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Act 2023, would be maintainable only before the Court of Sessions and not before the Magistrate's Court, as the alleged defamation was done by the Respondents in connection with her discharge of duties as Secretary of the Village Panchayat. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2025, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

4. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate passed a mechanical order without giving details and reasons, and the same is defective and needs to be rectified. He prayed that this Criminal Revision Petition may be allowed, setting aside the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District, in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2025.

5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is admitted that the Revision Petitioner is a Government servant working as a Secretary of Village Panchayat and allegations have been levelled against the Respondents for committing offences under Section 356(2) of BNS, including defamation against her in connection with her official duties.

7. The Court below has rightly observed that as per Section 222(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Act 2023, the application under Section 222 of BNSS is maintainable before the Court of Sessions, and not before the Magistrate's Court. Section 222(2) of BNSS states that when an offence under Chapter XIX of BNS is alleged to have been committed against a public servant in respect of their conduct in discharge of public functions, the Court of Session may take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. For better appreciation, Section 222(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) reads as follows:

“222.

.......

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita, when any offence falling under Chapter X

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top