2021 (10) TMI 290 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes defamation case over jurisdictional errors, emphasizes evidence requirement, upholds free speech.

Tmt. Dr. Tamilisai Soundararajan Versus Dhadi K. Karthikeyan

The court quashed a defamation case involving derogatory remarks made by the State President of a political party against another party and its head. ... Validity of suit/case against the state president of a political party - though the petition has been filed for the offence u/s. 500 IPC, but curiously the summons have been issued by the court below directing the petitioner to appear in relation to an offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - non-application off mind - right of freedom of speech - Defamation - HELD THAT:- The fundamental right to freedom of speech gets ascendance over individual's perception of his own reputation and that the constitutional right cannot be curtailed by taking recourse to criminal jurisprudence - from the definition of 'Defamation' it is evident that the words spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation, makes or publishes any imputation should be the basis on which the act of defamation could be held to be perpetrated. However, in the case on hand, though averment is made by the respondent in the private complaint filed u/s. 199 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., however, no material to substantiate the said act has been filed along with the said complaint, though it is the categorical averment of the respondent in the complaint that the words were spoken by the petitioner when the petitioner was addressing the print and electronic media. The complaint is a mere collection acts of the said to have been done by the political party and its President, but for the few lines of innuendos against the petitioner. The complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondent to gain political publicity at the cost of judicial time - in the present case, sub-section (6) of Section 199 IPC is the fulcrum of the case on which basis the private complaint has been lodged by the respondent, which has been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. It is implicitly clear that the respondent has taken it on his own to file the private complaint on the basis of some statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner against some other person/entity with which he has no grievance as there is no case of defamation as against him and the ingredients prescribed under sub-section (6) to Section 199 Cr.P.C. in no way stands fulfilled. Therefore, the private complaint alleging defamation has no legs to stand and the cognizance taken on the said complaint deserves to be quashed. Though the complaint has been filed u/s. 199 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., for an offence u/s. 500 IPC, yet the court below, on taking cognizance of the case, has issued summons u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This clearly shows that the trial court has not adverted to the material placed before it while taking cognizance of the case and the said act of the trial court, in issuing a notice u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for an offence alleged to have been committed u/s. 500 IPC, exhibits clear non-application of mind on the part of the court below - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Quashment of a case involving defamation charges under Section 500 IPC.2. Non-representation of parties in court hearings.3. Application of Section 199 r/w 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Allegations of defamation against a political party and its head.5. Jurisdictional errors in issuing summons under the Negotiable Instruments Act instead of Section 500 IPC.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, the State President of a political party, faced defamation charges for derogatory remarks made against another party and its head during a media interview. Despite repeated court listings and lack of representation by the parties, the court decided to proceed on merits due to the long-pending nature of the case.2. The petitioner contested the summons issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that it was wrongly issued for an offense under Section 500 IPC. The petitioner claimed that the complaint lacked evidence and authorization from the affected party, making it an abuse of process.3. The respondent, despite not appearing in court, filed a private complaint invoking Section 199 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., leading to the issuance of summons by the trial court. The court considered the averments in both the petition and the complaint before making its decision.4. The court analyzed the defamation laws under Sections 499, 500, 501, and 502 IPC, emphasizing the need for substantiating allegations of defamation with evidence. The judgment highlighted the importance of freedom of speech while acknowledging reasonable restrictions on expression.5. The court found that the private complaint lacked substance as it did not fulfill the criteria set out in Section 199 Cr.P.C. The absence of authorization from the affected party to file the complaint rendered it baseless, leading to the quashing of the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram. The court noted the jurisdictional error in issuing summons under the Negotiable Instruments Act instead of Section 500 IPC, further supporting the decision to quash the case.Overall, the judgment focused on the legal aspects of defamation, the necessity of evidence to support allegations, and the correct application of procedural laws in criminal cases.