Madras High Court P. Varadarajan And Ors. vs G.K. Mani, Member Of Legislative … on 15 March, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 2302 Author: M Jeyapaul Bench: M Jeyapaul ORDER M. Jeyapaul, J. Page 0839 1. Crl.O.P.No.844

Madras High Court
P. Varadarajan And Ors. vs G.K. Mani, Member Of Legislative … on 15 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 2302
Author: M Jeyapaul Bench: M Jeyapaul ORDER M. Jeyapaul, J.
Page 0839
1. Crl.O.P.No.844 of 2006 is filed by the first and second accused, Crl.O.P.No.1604 of 2006 is filedby 4th to 9th accused and Crl.O.P.No.1856 of 2006 is filed by the 10th accused seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.19039 Page 0840 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against thepetitioners and others herein reads as follows:-
The complainant is the President of ‘Pattali Makkal Katchi’ (hereinafter referred to ‘P.M.K.’). The accused are the Chairman and Managing Director, Publisher, Printer, Reporter and Photographer of the Tamil bi-weekly ‘Kumutham’ Reporter. In the issue dated 20.10.2005 of Kumutham Reporter Tamil bi-weekly it has been alleged that Indian Red Cross Society received Rs.50 crores from Foreign Red Cross Societies. The said amount collected for the purpose of spending for the welfare of the Tsunami victims is kept unspent due to the inaction on the part of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, Central Minister for Health and Family Welfare and also the Chairman of the Indian Red Cross Society. One Nagalakshmi, the victim of Tsunami, who was found loitering in the railway station with begging bowl committed suicide as she could not get any relief from the Tsunami relief fund.
3. The Commissioner of Tsunami Relief Fund was contacted, but he informed the reporter thatsufficient fund did not reach them from the Indian Red Cross Society. The Post of Secretary General of the Red Cross Society which fell vacant was placed in the additional charge of the Director General of Health Services Sri Agarwal. In order to promote the interest of close relative of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss working in Latext Limited, he was appointed to supervise the work of Tsunami relief distribution. The marginalised fisherman community and Dalit have been betrayed by Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss. The reporter sent reports to various authorities but it is of no avail. Therefore the reporter has decided to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the public interest litigation to get justice.
4. Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss is the organising Secretary of the P.M.K Party. He has been nominatedand elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha on being proposed by the complainant and supported by the other P.M.K M.L.A’s of Tamil Nadu. He was consequently designated as the Chairman of All India Red Cross Society. Each portion of the impugned article is per se defamatory. He has been portrayed mischievously as sitting over the heap of currency notes. The accused, having fully known well that the information is false, deliberately printed, published and circulated the article with an intention to defame and slur Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, the organising Secretary of the PMK party.
The above article creates an impression on the readers and the on lookers that Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss has misappropriated the funds earmarked for the Tsunami victims. Several party leaders, members of the Red Cross Society and the public have started enquiring about the defamatory article published with an intention to tarnish the image of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in the eyes of the public. Hence the accused will have to be prosecuted for the offences as stated supra.
5. In the petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the accused havecontended as follows:-
Page 0841 The complainant has no locus standi to prefer the complaint as he will not fall within the category of persons reportedly aggrieved by the article. He could not have preferred the complaint when admittedly the article has not dealt with him. He has no competence to maintain the complaint and dispute the validity of the said averments. The complaint has been filed with an attempt to muscle the press and to prevent them from reporting in a free and fair manner. The criminal complaint is an arm twisting exercise undertaken by the complainant. The article contains no reference to any political party. It refers only to the affairs of the Red Cross Society. The political party of the complainant was not the subject matter of the said article. Therefore the criminal proceedings for defamation is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has fairly submitted that he has no objection inquashing the complaint except for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore it would be an exercise in futility to advert to the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 501, 502, 503, 504 and 505(1)(c) and 2 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and r/w Sections 14 and 15 of the Press and Registration of Books Act.
7. The only point that now survives for consideration before this Court is whether the criminalproceedings in C.C.No.19039 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable or not.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that the impugned articlelaunches attack only against Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, the Union Health Minister and the Chairman of the Red Cross Society. When there is no reference to the political party to which Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss belongs, the petitioner, who is the President of the PMK, has no locus standi to question the impugned article. The aggrieved person, if any, would be only Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, the Chairman of the Red Cross Society and not the respondent/complainant who is the President of PMK Party.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss isthe organising Secretary of the PMK, who has been nominated and elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha on the proposal made by the complainant. As he has been nominated with the support of the PMK MLA’s of Tamil Nadu, any vilification campaign against Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss will have direct impact on the office bearers and party workers of PMK. The position occupied by Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss as a Chairman of All India Red Cross Society is consequent upon his appointment as Cabinet Minister for Health and Family Welfare. Therefore, the complainant who has been aggrieved by the defamatory article is entitled to maintain the criminal proceedings initiated by him.
10. Section 199(1) Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-
Section 199. Prosecution for defamation.–(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),Page 0842 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan 2001 SCC (Cri) 974 has held asfollows:-
The collocation of the words “by some persons aggrieved” in Section 199 definitely indicates that the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts of each case. If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities, its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of it. Similarly, if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on offensive trade, every working partner of the firm can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it. As the hospital against which imputations were published in the present case is a private limited company, it is too far-fetched to rule out any one of its Directors, feeling aggrieved on account of pejoratives hurled at the Company.
12. As per the above dictum, the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself,but if he falls within the phrase “some persons aggrieved”, he can very well maintain a private complaint for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Some examples have been given in the aforesaid judgment. If the company or the partnership firm was subjected to vilification, the Director of the Company or the partner of the firm, as the case may be, has every reason to feel hurt on account of such an attack launched against the company or the partnership firm.
13. This Court in R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal v. V. Sathyamoorthy 2002 (5) CTC 579 has held that thephrase “some person” appearing instead of “the person” in Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, makes all the difference. Therefore, if a defamed article is published against a party leader as well as his party members, the member of the party which is an identifiable one has every liberty to file a private complaint for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioners/accused there is no reference at all to the party to which Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss belongs. Even his Cabinet position as Minister for Health and Family Welfare was conspicuously spared in the article. The functioning of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in his capacity as a Chairman of the All India Red Cross Society was the subject of attack. His political leanings and the covetable position occupied as Minister for Health and Family Welfare was not at all the subject matter of discussion found in the impugned article.
Page 0843
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa has authoritatively held thatthe defamatory imputation against a collection of persons falls within the definition of defamation, but such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. In such a case, the complaint made by an individual member of that collection of persons which is identifiable, definite and determinate in relations to the imputations is sustainable.
16. In the case on hand, the style of functioning of the Red Cross Society and the helmsman thereofwas critically analysed in the impugned article. If one of the members of the Red Cross Society comes forward with such a complaint, there is some substance in the plea of such a complainant that he felt aggrieved of the damaging remarks made in the impugned article as against the Red Cross Society. The complainant, who is the President of PMK, has no nexus with the Indian Red Cross Society.
17. The individual attack made in the impugned article does avoid referring to the political leaningsof Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss. If the political culture of the particular party was assailed, while launching tirade against a particular political personage then there is some meaning in saying that the political cadre or political boss at the helms of the affairs felt hurt.
18. The imputations found in the article under challenge do not relate to the complainant or hispolitical party. There is no allegation of the political activity of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in the aforesaid article. As there is no defamatory imputation levelled against the political party of the complainant and Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, the complainant cannot claim that he falls squarely under the category of “some persons aggrieved” by the offence of defamation. PMK was not the target of attack in the article which is put to test. Therefore, the respondent/complainant who is the President of PMK has no locus standi to prefer the complaint for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. As the respondent/complainant has expressed no objection to quash the criminal proceedings inC.C.No.19039 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 501, 502, 503, 504 and 505(1)(c) and 2 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and r/w Sections 14 and 15 of the Press and Registration of Books Act and as it is found that the complainant has no locus standi as per Section 199 of the Code to file the complaint for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as regards the petitioners herein the criminal proceeding in C.C.No19039 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, stands quashed. Consequently, the criminal original petitions stand allowed and the connected criminal miscellaneous petitions stand closed.