Quashed MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.9997 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.6615 of 2025 S.R.K.Appu @ Radhakrishnan … Petitioner Vs. The Public Prosecutor, Vellore District, Vellore. … Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.9997 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.6615 of 2025
S.R.K.Appu @ Radhakrishnan … Petitioner
Vs.
The Public Prosecutor,
Vellore District, Vellore. … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for records of the proceedings pertaining to C.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram for M/s.Nathan and Associates
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the private complaint lodged by the Public Prosecutor for the offence under Section 500 of IPC against the petitioner, for allegedly making defamatory statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, in C.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that the statements made by the petitioner in the public speech were never circulated anywhere except in a magazine run by another political party. Even if the entire allegations are taken together, they can only be construed as criticism against the individual. The statements were never targeted or uttered in connection with the discharge of any official duty of the Chief Minister. Therefore, the offence of defamation is not be made out. Hence, he prayed that the private complaint be quashed.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the statements extracted in the private complaint indicate that they were not only made against the individual, but also in respect of the discharge of the official duty of the Chief Minister. Therefore, the offence of defamation is clearly made out and the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage.
4. The crux of the statements made by the petitioner is extracted hereunder :-
“nlhg;gh !;lhypd; mthf;ns eP’f;s; ifayhfhjth; kff;Sf;F m”;R igrh gpiunah$dk; Mfhjth; Kjyikr;rh; epht;hfk; braa; bjhpahj Kjyikr;rh;

m”;R igrhtf[F ; gpunah$dk; ,y;yhj Kjyikr;rh; eP vjw;F////
khd’;bfl;l !;lhypnd btff;’;bfl;l !;lhypnd kff;SfF; Jnuhfk; braJ; bfhz;oUfF;k; !;lhypd; mth;fns
f”;rh tpw;wjw;F rhuhajj;jhy; brj;jjwF; fhuzk; ehd; jhd; m”;R igrht[fF; gpunah$dk; ,y;yhj Kjyikr;rh; ehd; jhd; vd;W vlg;ghoahhplk; kdd; pg;g[ nfl;L mLj;J vlg;ghoahh; jhd; Kjyikr;ruhf tu ntz;Lk; vd;W brhy;y ntz;Lk;/

5. The statement made by the petitioner are improper and in fact, in ordinary course, they would certainly attract the case of defamation. The very nature of the statements indicates that uttering such words is highly derogatory and condemnable.
6. Be that as it may, whether it is the leader of a political party or a member of the opposite party, the fact remains that persons in politics cannot make such reckless statements as against others.
7. On a careful perusal of the statements, this Court is of the view that they were targeted mainly at the Chief Minister in his personal capacity and not in respect of the discharge of his official duties. In this regard, this Court, in the case of M.K.Stalin vs. The City Public Prosecutor in Crl.O.P.No.23645 of 2018 dated 10.12.2020, has held as follows :-
“5. Already, this Court in a batch of writ petition in W.P.No.25377 and 25378 of 2013, etc., dated 21.5.2020, extensively examined and analyzed the scope of Section 199 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure along with Sec.199 (6), Exceptions under Section 499, penal provisions under Sec. 500, 501 and 502 of I.P.C., Procedure for prosecuting the criminal defamation offences prescribed under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., the law of Criminal defamation, Role of the Public
Prosecutor and his duties and Duties of the Magistrate/ Sessions Judge while taking cognizance of a private complaint, Freedom of expression, etc. Be that as it may.
6. It is also submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 500 of I.P.C., against the constitutional functionaries or the Minister of State, it has to be established by the prosecution that the alleged imputation made in respect of the conduct of a public servant/public functionary in discharge of his/her public functions and the public function stands on a different footing than the private activities of a public servant. If the statement made is mere criticism then it is a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is also to be noted that in a catena of judgments reported in [(2015)8 SCC 239 RAJDEEP SARDESAI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS] and
[1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, the Apex Court held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE REPORTED IN (1998) 5 SCC
749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The so called imputation allegedly made should have reasonable nexus with discharge of public duties. Therefore, mere criticism without any intent on the part of the petitioner and/or without any nexus with discharge of public duties will not come under the purview of offence punishable under Sec.500 of I.P.C.
8. As already stated supra, the G.O.Ms.No.705, dated
7.8.2012 issued by the Public (Law and Order -H) department according sanction, to prosecute the petitioner and publisher of the daily itself has been quashed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.25377 and 25378 of 2013, etc., dated 21.5.2020.
9. In a judgment reported in (2018)6 SCC 676
[K.K.MISHRA VS.THE STATE OF MADHYA PADESH AND OTHERS the Apex Court held that the alleged statements have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by or office of the Chief Minister. Such statements may be defamatory but in absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties or office of the Chief Minister, remedy under section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. will not be available. It is the remedy saved by the provisions of subsection (6) of section 199 Cr.P.C. i.e. a complaint by the Chief minister before the ordinary court i.e. the court of a Magistrate which would be available and could have been resorted to.
10. In ASHWINI KUMAR VS. SUBASH GOYAL reported in MANU/PH/1170/2013 while dealing with a case of Criminal defamation under section 499 IPC quashed the complaint and held as follows:
“ The attempt to curb the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the power of the pen therefore, needs to be discouraged and rather, complaints such as these ordinarily should be viewed as attempts of a prudish mind of the complainant’s orchestrator showing complete subversiveness and servility of character, and displaying an aversion to criticism over preference to a parroted existence.(
Para 19).”
11. Similarly in KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB reported IN A.I.R. 1956 SC 541 wherein the Apex Court held that vulgar abuses made against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister will not amount to defamation of the State but may amount only to the defamation of the public functionaries concerned and therefore, they are only personal in nature. The facts of that case are that the accused was charged under section 9 of the Punjab security of the State Act, 1953 for making vulgar abuses against the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister. The Hon’ble Supreme Court even though finding that the accused statements amounted to defamation against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister however held that the vulgar abuses do not undermine the security of the state or friendly relations with foreign states nor did they amount to contempt of court or defamation prejudicial to overthrow the state. The Apex court held that the slogans were certainly defamatory of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister, but the redress of that grievance was personal to these individuals and the state authorities could not take the cudgels on their behalf.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 238 [RAJDEEP SARDESAI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND
OTHERS] wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
”33. Further, the contention urged by the appellants’ counsel placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments that the act of the second respondent allegedly aiding Gujarat Police Officers to facilitate taking Sohrabuddin from Bidar to Ahmedabad, has nothing to do with the discharge of his public functions, hence, the said statement in the news item allegedly defaming the second respondent being telecast and published in electronic and print media does not attract Section 199 CrPC. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the sanction accorded by the State Government is beyond its jurisdiction as the said act of aiding Gujarat Police is an independent act and it is not in relation to the discharge of public functions of the second respondent though he, at that relevant point of time, was discharging his public functions. This contention on behalf of the appellants is also wholly untenable in law, for the reason that determining the question on whether or not the second respondent while aiding Gujarat Police at that point of time was in the capacity of his official discharge of his public functions or otherwise, is to be determined by regular trial after examining the facts, circumstances and evidence on record.”
Absolutely, there is no dispute on the above legal position.
13. Here, the so called imputation is just like criticism whereas in the judgment cited supra, imputation allegedly put against the accused. The imputation alleged to have been made by the petitioner is that,
”Really if the action is to be taken in land grabbing, action has to be taken in respect of Kodanadu estate which was encroached in the name of benami and similarly, in Sirudavur, a land which belongs to Dalit people was encroached, the former Chief Minister used to visit there for taking rest. Therefore, action should be taken against those encroachment as against the then Chief Minister and he gave a statement in connection with the complaint in this regard.””
8. Thereby, the statements made are only against the personal capacity of the Chief Minister and there is no nexus between the said statements and the discharge of his public duties. In such being the position, though the statements of the petitioner appears to be defamatory in nature, since they are directed only against the individual and not in respect of the discharge of the official duties or public duties of the office of the Chief Minister, the private complaint ought to have been filed by the individual concerned and not by the Public Prosecutor. The affected individual may seek remedy under Section 199(6) of Cr.P.C and not under Section 199(2) and 199(4) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the Court below is not in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the private complaint filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.1 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
10. However, the petitioner is expected to mend his ways and shall not hereafter make any such unwanted allegations in a vituperative manner against any individual or any other political party.
22.08.2025
ham
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Vellore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. ham
Crl.O.P.No.9997 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.6615 of 2025
22.08.2025