Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 802 (MAD)

A. Mohan v. A. Arulraj

2015-02-10

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.151 of 2013 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kulithalai, Karur District, filed by the respondent herein, for prosecuting the petitioners herein for the commission of the offences under Sections 499, 500 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. The private complaint was taken cognizance and after receipt of the summons, the accused filed Cr.M.P.No.4214 of 2014 for discharge, contending that the contents of the reply notice sent to the legal notice sent on behalf of the private complainant cannot be construed as defamatory statement and that the other allegations that in public functions and marriage functions, the accused uttered defamatory statements are also not substantiated, for the reason that no particular date or month or year has been given. The said petition for discharge was dismissed on merits on 27.08.2014 and aggrieved by the same, the accused had filed this revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the averments made in the private complaint filed by the respondent cannot be construed as defamatory and the Trial Court, without looking into the legal position, has erroneously dismissed the application filed for discharge and prayed for interference. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/private complainant would contend that the points urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ accused are matter for trial and, therefore, the petitioners/accused cannot be discharged. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the typed-set of documents. 5. The private complaint contains two parts. The first part relates to the sending of reply notice dated 08.02.2013 to the legal notice sent on behalf of the private complainant dated 06.02.2013 and the second part relates to the making of defamatory statements in public functions and marriage functions. 6. Insofar as the first part of the complaint is concerned, this Court is of the view that the legal notices are exchange between the parties and even for the sake of argument, the notices contain some defamatory statement and it cannot be construed as defamatory for the reason that only the concerned parties, who exchange notices, are said to be aware of the same. 7. 7. In Alli Rani Joseph Mathew v. P. Arun Kumar, 2013(1) CTC 661 it has been held that the statements made in pleadings in civil suits cannot be construed as defamatory per se. 8. In the considered opinion of the Court, the same analogy would apply to the exchange of legal notices which said to have contained the defamatory statement. 9. Insofar as the second part of the complaint is concerned, the private complainant has specifically averred that in public and marriage functions, some defamatory statements are levelled against the respondent/private complainant and in the sworn statement also, he has specifically said so and it was also supported by the sworn statement of P.W.3 namely Vairamoorthy. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, though it is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/accused that in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement, the private complainant has not specifically given the date, month and year of the alleged statements made by the accused in public functions, this Court is of the view that the said issue can be thrashed out only during the course of trial. Therefore, the revision is dismissed confirming the order dated 27.08.2014 made in Cr.M.P.No.4214 of 2014 in C.C.No.151 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kulithalai, Karur District. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this revision and the Court has not test upon the merits of the complaint or the defence to be projected by the accused and it is needless to say that the Trial Court has to decide the private complaint, based upon the quality of evidence let in before it. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.