Dr.Sri Devi, Aged 70 Years v. Ms.Amala Valantine
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRL. O.P. NO. 10503 OF 2018 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.5381 & 5382 OF 2018 Dr.Sri Devi
...Petitioner / Accused No.4
Versus
1.Amala Valantine
...Respondent / Complainant
2.Malar Publication The Printer and Publisher, Malai Malar, Rani Building, No.86, Periyar High Road, Vepery, Chennai-600007.
3.The Chief Manager, Malai Malar, Rani Building, No.86, Periyar High Road, Vepery, Chennai-600007.
4.The Reporter Chengalpattu Area, Malai Malar, Rani Building, No.86, Periyar High Road, Vepery, Chennai-600007.
...Respondents / Accused 1 to 3
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.3877 of 2014, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-600015 and quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.M.Muniruddin Sheriff For Respondent :
MR.R.N.Amarnath for R1
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3877 of 2014 on the file of the IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for the offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 r/w. 34 IPC,
2. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner originally gave a complaint before the police which was registered in Crime.No.34 of 2014. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner's husband was arrested. Thereafter, it was published in the tamil Daily "Malai Murasu" publication dated 27.01.2014. The said news item contained defamatory statement regarding the complainant and her husband with respect to complaint given by the petitioner/4th accused. The main allegation in the complaint indicates that the photographs that appeared in the newspaper are morphed ones and the defamatory statement has been published after getting the said photographs from the Facebook account of the complainant's husband illegally without permission.
It is also alleged that the 4th accused, who was present in the police station claims that she will publish a photograph in the newspaper. Hence, the publication has affected the reputation of the complainant and hence filed the complaint against the publication in question that the husband of the petitioner was cheated and her husband's photographs also appeared. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the photograph is morphed one and the allegations are defamatory in nature.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/4th accused submitted that she has not published any article, and A1 to A3 have published. Therefore, she is not responsible for any such publication. Therefore, sought to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard Mr.M.Muniruddin Sheriff, learned counsel for the petitioner and MR.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is not responsible for such publication and A1 to A3 alone have published. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant has not disputed the said fact. Whether or not A1 to A3 alone have published without the intervention of A4, is a matter of evidence which cannot be decided at this stage. Admittedly, defamatory articles are found and published in the newspapers in which A1, A2 and A3 are Editors and publishers. Therefore, the contention that she has not given any statement to A1 to publish such statements has to be proved before the trial Court by A4. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court is
dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court. It is very well open to the petitioner/accused to raise all her defence before the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar psa/msv To 1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.(do through) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate Sr.No.5503 +1cc to Mr.M.Muniruddin Sheriff, Advocate Sr.No.5504 Crl.O.P.No.10503 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5381 & 5382 of 2018 JPL(CO) RVM(11/02/2022)