An advocate cannot be prosecuted for defamation based on client instructions, ensuring legal privilege is maintained.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.Nos.4662 & 4663 of 2022 and 13732 of 2023 Crl.R.C.No.8047 of 2022 J.N.Naresh Kumar .... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8047 of 2022 Radhika Dolia .... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20189 of 2023 Vs

1.Jayakaran Vasudevan Represented by Power Agent V.Saravanan .... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps

2.Radhika Doli

3.Thulasi Davey .... Respondents in Crl.O.P.Nos.8047 of 2022 Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.376 of 2021 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Tiruvallur and quash the same against the petitioner.

In Crl.O.P.No.8047 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Saravanan For R1 : Mr.N.Rajkumar For R2 : Mr.R.Kalidass For R3 : Mrs.M.S.Deepika In Crl.O.P.No.20189 of 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.N.Rajkumar

COMMON ORDER

Both the petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.376 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8047 of 2022 is arrayed as third accused. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20189 of 2023 is arrayed as first accused.

4. The first respondent in Crl.O.P.No.8047 of 2022 and the respondent in Crl.O.P.No.20189 of 2023 filed a private complaint for the offence under Sections 500 and 109 of IPC, alleging that he filed a suit as against the first accused in O.S.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai, seeking declaration that the alleged forced marriage with the first accused as null and void. It is further alleged that, as a counterblast to the said civil proceedings, the first accused, with the connivance and instigation of the third accused, lodged a complaint under the POCSO Act as against the first respondent by using the second accused, who is the minor daughter of the first accused. Even before the said complaint was taken on file, the accused disseminated false allegations of sexual harassment against the first respondent and also published the same in a news paper. However, after conducting an enquiry, the complaint was dismissed by the Mahila Court, Thiruvallur.

5. It is further alleged that defamatory statements against the complainant were given to news reporters of on-line media platiforms such as Puthiyathelaimurai, Maalaimalar and Vikatan as well as to daily newspapers such as Dhinakaran and Maalai Malar. They had also given press reports alleging that the complainant had misbehaved with the second accused, thereby propagating and spreading false news about the complainant to the media. Insofar as the third accused is concerned, he is none other than an Advocate practising District Court, who appeared on behalf of the first and second accused.

6. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the first respondent reveals that the third accused is alleged to have actively assisted and abetted the first and second accused in the alleged act of defamation. Except the said allegation, no other specific allegations made as against the third accused, who is an Advocate who appeared on behalf of the first and second accused when they lodged the complaint. Though the said complaint was subsequently dismissed, the respondent has filed a defamatory complaint alleging defamation on the ground that false news was spread against the first respondent in the newspapers and through news reporters. It is unfortunate to state that the Advocate who appeared on behalf of his clients has als