Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3245 (MAD)

K. Muthaiah Doss v. Venkatachalam

2015-10-06

R.MALA

body2015
ORDER The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.470 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, stating that the respondent herein has preferred a private complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. for defamation for issuance of pamphlets in page 1 to 20. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the news item and articles published in the newspapers will not make out a case for the offence under Section 500 IPC. As per the decision in Laloo Prasad -vs- State of Bihar and another reported in 1997 (2) Crimes, he prays for quashing the S.T.C.No. 470 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. He further submits that he wants early disposal of the case and to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners. 3. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that already these petitioners along with others filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3239 of 2007, for quashing the same and that has been dismissed. In that, at paragraph 6', it was specifically mentioned that there is a prima facie case made out. They also sought for dispensing with their personal appearance before the trial Court and hence, she prays for dismissal. 4. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the respondent has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In that, these petitioners along with others filed a petition before this Court Crl.O.P(MD)No.3239 of 2007, wherein this Court has held in paragraphs 6 to 8 reads as follows: "6. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the law on this point. Even though Section 500 I.P.C has been invoked, so far law of defamation is concerned, I could see no significant cleavage or difference between the defamation as tort and the defamation as a crime. I would like to refer to the famous treatise 'Salmand and Heuston on the Law of Torts' [Twentieth Edition]. Even though Section 500 I.P.C has been invoked, so far law of defamation is concerned, I could see no significant cleavage or difference between the defamation as tort and the defamation as a crime. I would like to refer to the famous treatise 'Salmand and Heuston on the Law of Torts' [Twentieth Edition]. The following extract from treatise, would highlight the correct legal position: "Charges against public persons: The same principle is applicable even when the interest of the defendant is merely the general interest which he possesses in common with all others in the honest and efficient exercise by public officials of the duties entrusted to them. Thus any member of the public may make charges of misconduct against any public servant and the communication will be privileged but the charge must be made to the proper persons-that is to say, to those who have a corresponding interest. Otherwise there would be a starting licence to defame on a grand scale. So a constituent may write to his Member of Parliament asking for his assistance to bring to the notice of the appropriate Minister or other person a complaint of improper conduct on the part of a public officer, for example, a police officer or a justice of the peace, acting in his constituency in relation to his office. If this were not the law, a Member of Parliament would act at his peril if he extended his activities beyond the Palace of Westminister. But a communication to the wrong person, and a fortiori a publication of the complaint to the world at large in a newspaper or otherwise, is an excess of privilege, and the privilege will be thereby forfeited. On the other hand, the Defamation Act 1952, provides that a defamatory statement published by or on behalf of a candidate in any election to a local government authority or to Parliament shall not be deemed to be published on a privileged occasion on the ground that it is material to a question in issue in the election, whether or not the person by whom it is published is qualified to vote at the election." 7. A mere reading of above excerpt would clearly demonstrate and convey, highlight and spotlight the correct legal position and the matter is covered under the broad caption 'qualified privilege'. A mere reading of above excerpt would clearly demonstrate and convey, highlight and spotlight the correct legal position and the matter is covered under the broad caption 'qualified privilege'. A person aggrieved undoubtedly and indubitably is having the right to petition the authority concerned for redressal and such made in good faith for redressal, complaint no doubt even if subsequently turned out to be not proved, yet the person made the complaint cannot be made liable for defamation. However, if it is actuated by malice or ill- will or spite, certainly he is answerable both under the criminal law and the civil law. Furthermore, so far defamation is concerned, publication is an important ingredient. Here, in this case, over and above, the representation sent to the appropriate authority in the H.R & C.E Department, admittedly such publication was made in the form of notice. As many as twelve persons were shown as the author of such notice and under their names alone, the publication was effected. 8. Ex facie and prima facie, they landed themselves in a position to justify their conduct. To the risk of repetition without being tautologous, I would like to reiterate that there is no harm in complaining the matter to the authority concerned for redressal, but incorporating the same in the form of notice and publishing it, is entirely different and for which, those persons who are responsible for publication should undergo the ordeal of trial and if at all, they are innocents, then they could get acquittal". 5. From the above, it is clear that it was specifically held that there is prima facie case made out. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason for quashing the private complaint already which was dismissed. However, it is a fit case for giving a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, to dispose of S.T.C.No.470 of 2007, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order since both the petitioners as well as the complainant are the senior citizens. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that their personal appearance should be dispensed with. The petitioners are at liberty to file an application before the concerned Court for dispensing with their personal appearance and the trial Court is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that their personal appearance should be dispensed with. The petitioners are at liberty to file an application before the concerned Court for dispensing with their personal appearance and the trial Court is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.