R. Krishnamurthy and Others vs The City Public Prosecutor

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The accused in C.C.No. 3/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai are the petitioners. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 199(2) CrPC stating that the accused persons who are the editor, printer and publisher of the news daily "DINA MALAR", published defamatory articles in the newspaper publication dated 21.12.2014 against the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles, Government of Tamil Nadu and by reason of publication of news item, they intended to defame the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles and they published the news item with malicious intention and to harm the reputation of the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles. That complaint was taken on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.C.No. 3/2015 and this petition is filed by the accused to quash the said complaint.

Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the news item published in the news daily "DINA MALAR" dated 21.12.2014 did not contain any defamatory allegation against the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles, much less any defamatory statement/article against anybody and questions were raised regarding purchase of yarn through Tamil Nadu Handlooms for the purpose of supply of sarees and dhoties and a doubt was raised whether free sarees and dhoties would be supplied to common man before the Pongal festival. He therefore, submitted that the news item was published in public interest and there was no defamatory statement made against the Minister or against particular Ministry and therefore, it will not come under the scope of Section 500 IPC.

Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that allegations were made in the newspaper publication purposively with an intention to harm the reputation of the Hon''ble Minister and the allegations are untrue and it was published in a careless manner without verifying the fact and contrary to the report published in the paper, 90% was produced and without getting proper verification from the department, false figures were given in the advertisement and therefore, the allegations per se amount to defamation and therefore, the complaint was allowed.

In the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No. 3/2015, the following passages from the publication were given, which according to the respondent amounts to defamation:

A reading of the said passage given in the complaint, in my opinion, does not make any imputation against any particular individual and a general comment was made that by dyeing the yarn for the purpose of giving shining appearance, the quality of the yarn would deteriorate and production would also be affected. It is further stated that there was shortage in the manufacture of dhoties due to deficit number of labourers and though sufficient quantity of yarn was supplied, only 60% to 65% of dhoties and sarees were produced and a doubt was raised whether before Pongal festival, free dhoties and sarees would be distributed to common man. According to me, the above passage only reflected the information received by the reporter and no imputation was made against the Minister or against particular Ministry.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that false information was given in the news item that only 60% of production was achieved but the actual production was more than 65% and therefore, without verifying the information from the department, the news was given to defame the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles. According to me, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted. As stated supra, the news item only gives some figures on the basis of information received by the reporter and if the report is not correct, it is open to the Ministry to give publication with clarification and by giving some information regarding percentage of production, which according to the prosecution are not correct, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has committed the offence of defamation. Further no malafide has been attributed to the petitioner and it cannot be stated that the report was published in a careless manner. As the report published in the newspaper did not contain any defamatory allegation either against the Hon''ble Minister for Handlooms and Textiles or against the Ministry or against any particular individual, the complaint filed on behalf of the Minister is misconceived and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 3/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.