SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

IN THE COURT OF XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, SAIDAPET AT CHENNAI C.C NO.                           OF 2023   In The Matter of: T.R.Baalu, S/o. Late Rajuthevar No. 29, Raman Street, T. Nagar Chennai – 600 017 …Complainant Vs. Thiru.  K. Annamalai, S/o Kuppusamy, “Kamalalayam”, 19, Vaidyaraman Street, Parthasarathi Puram, Nagar, Chennai 600 017                                                                            …Accused COMPLAINT U/S 199(1) & 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 R/W SECTION 499 & 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860  

by ·

IN THE COURT OF XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, SAIDAPET AT CHENNAI

C.C NO.                           OF 2023

 

In The Matter of:

T.R.Baalu,

S/o. Late Rajuthevar

No. 29, Raman Street, T. Nagar

Chennai – 600 017

 

…Complainant

Vs.

Thiru.  K. Annamalai,

S/o Kuppusamy,

“Kamalalayam”,

19, Vaidyaraman Street, Parthasarathi Puram,

  1. Nagar,

Chennai 600 017                                                                            …Accused

 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 199(1) & 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 R/W SECTION 499 & 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

 

 

  1. The Complainant is T.R.Baalu, s/o Rajuthevar, Indian, aged about 82 years, residing at No. 29, Raman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
  2. The address for service of notices and processes on the Complainant is that of his counsel M/s. P.Wilson Associates, having office at “ JVL TOWERS” 3rd Floor, No. 51/G5-3A, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 6000239
  3. It is submitted that the Accused is Thiru. K. Annamalai s/o Kuppusamy, aged about 38 years, who is an Ex-IPS Officer and currently serving as the Tamil Nadu BJP State President having office at “Kamalalyam”, No. 19, Vaidyaram Street, Parthasarathi Puram, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
  4. The address of service of notices, process, summons and warrants on the accused is as stated above.
  5. The complainant submits that the present complaint is filed under section 199(1) & 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) committed by the accused against the complainant.
  6. The complainant submits that the present complaint is filed and instituted by the complainant against the Accused for prosecution and conviction of the accused for committing an offence under section 500 of IPC. The accused has wilfully, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously defamed the complainant by making false, baseless and scandalous allegations that have tarnished the reputation of the Complainant in the eyes of the public.
  7. The complainant submits that the Complainant has been in public life for more than 65 years and been actively involved in politics since 1957. The Complainant is presently serving as a Member of Parliament for Sriperumbudur Constituency and the complainant has been elected one time to the Rajya Sabha for the period from 1986 to 1992 and six times to Lok Sabha from 1996 till 2014 from Chennai South and Sriperumbudur Constituencies and has served as Union Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas during the period from 1996 to 1998. In the year 1998, the complainant served as a Member of the Committee on Railways and Member of the Consultative Committee of Ministry of Home Affairs and later joined the Union Cabinet and served as Cabinet Minister for Environment and Forests from 13.10.1999 to 20.12.2003. While the complainant was the Union Minster for Environment and Forests, he was also the President of the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change in which Ministers of 190 countries from all over the world were Members. The complainant served as the Union Minister for Shipping, Road Transport and Highways during the years 2004 to 2009. The complainant has risen from the grass root level and has held several positions in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and is presently serving as the Treasurer of the party. The complainant is well regarded as a leader of the masses and has rendered continuous and relentless public service from the grass root level for the last 60 years. Therefore, the Complainant holds good and respectable reputation amongst the general public.
  8. The complainant submits that the Accused is an ex-IPS officer and is currently the Tamil Nadu BJP State President. The accused has never been elected to a public office and has been unable to make a mark electorally in the State of Tamil Nadu, because of which the accused has resorted to defame, scandalise and tarnish the reputation of the Complainant.
  9. The complainant submits that the Complainant is aggrieved by the press conference given by the accused on 14.04.2023 at BJP state headquarters “Kamalalayam” located at the address stated above from about 10.15 a.m. onwards. The said press conference was streamed live on the Accused’s Facebook page having the URL https://www.facebook.com/watch/k.annamalai.ips/ and the link to the recorded stream of the press conference is found at “https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=u9e0cZ&ref=w atch_ permalink&v =63 40060979 378386”. The said press conference was also telecasted on TV channels and broadcasted on several YouTube channels and is now found on several social media pages as well. The complainant states that apart from this, the accused has created a webpage on the URL https://enmannenmakkal.com/ wherein the offending video was live streamed and is still available. The accused is also sharing the said video on social media with the hashtag “EnMannEnMakkal”. In the middle of the press conference the accused had screened a film titled “DMK Files” (hereinafter referred to as “the film”). A copy of the entire offending video of the said press conference is attached to this complaint in a pen drive as Annexure, which may be read as part and parcel of this complaint.
  10. The complainant submits that the video contains several vile and reckless statements about the Complainant that are per se false, defamatory and has scandalous imputations against the Complainant.
  11. The Complainant submits that during the entire length of the speech in the press meet, the accused has made false, baseless and defamatory allegations and statements that the persons belonging to the DMK party have indulged in corruption and have amassed wealth and assets out of corrupt activities without any basis or cogent materials or evidence to back his claim. In continuation of this theme, at 22 minute 26 seconds of the video, the accused had made a reference to the complainant and has displayed his name and photograph as part of the film.
  12. The complainant submits that the accused has displayed the complainant’s family lineage showing the name of his spouses and also have shown the names of his children out of whom only one Mr. T.R.B Rajaa is in public life currently serving as MLA from Mannargudi Constituency and Hon’ble Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu. It is submitted that displaying the names of his spouses and children, who are not in public life violates their right to privacy and the accused is liable to be prosecuted for the same.
  13. The complainant submits that said film shows a screenshot of the complainant’s profile on the website myneta.info wherein his declared assets of Rs. 2 crores in 2004 and Rs. 20 crores in 2019 as per the affidavits filed in support of his election nomination forms are highlighted. Thereafter, the film shows the name of the complainant, his photograph and the names of 21 companies across 3 slides with their alleged valuation as follows: Kings India Power Corporation(Rs.50 crores), Kings India Chemicals(Rs.47 crores), Twice Digital Private Limited(Rs.3 crores), Maya Motor Cycles(Rs.1.8 crores), Star City Hospitality(Rs.16.9 crores), Liv Cars(Rs.3.15 crores), Maya Automobiles(Rs.7 crores), Safe Infratech Private Limited(Rs.10 crores), Golden Vats(Rs.255 crores), Meenam Fisheries(Rs.0.2 crores), Mennam Exports(Rs.1.2 crores), Kings Estate and Securities(Rs.0.18 crores), Twice Holdings (Rs.1 crore), Aristo Telemedia(Rs.10 crores), Golden Roads (Rs.2.2 crores), Geo Properties(Rs.1.3 crores), Chakra Woods(Rs.3 crores), Golden Road Transport (Rs.100 crores), Aristo Telenet(Rs.0.9 crores), Sakthi Power Solutions(Rs.0.14 crores), Kings Engineering College(Rs.466.65 crores) and Sai Ram Institutions(Rs.9860.48 crores)and shows the total value of these companies as Rs.10,841.10 crores. The implication made by the accused is that the complainant owns these companies and the assets of these companies are the assets of the complainant. Such a statement, implication and innuendo made by the accused is false, baseless, unsubstantiated and defamatory and these allegations are made with the sole intention to tarnish my client’s reputation. It is submitted that the complainant is not a shareholder in any of the above mentioned companies except in 3 companies – Kings India Power Corporation, Kings India Chemicals and Meenam Fisheries where also he owns a minority stake. It is submitted that he is not a Director in any of these companies, not even the three aforesaid companies where he holds shares. That apart, these three companies namely Kings India Power Corporation, Kings India Chemicals and Meenam Fisheries are currently not doing any business for the past several years and details of the complainant’s shareholding is duly shown in the affidavit filed in support of his nomination forms in the 2019 general election. The complainant states that the allegation made by the accused is per se false, baseless and defamatory allegations and statements and such statement are made without any material basis or cogent evidence, with reckless disregard for the truth.
  14. The complainant submits that the complainant is in no way associated with the companies mentioned by the accused (except the three companies Kings India Power Corporation, Kings India Chemicals and Meenam Fisheries) and that the accused have attempted to create a misconception among the public that the complainant has accumulated wealth illegally by making baseless allegations with the sole intention to tarnish his reputation. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged values of the companies mentioned in the slide show are completely false and baseless and not on the basis of any cogent evidence or materials.
  15. The complainant states that the accused has also created a webpage titled as “DMK Files” which is found at URL https://dmkfiles.in wherein the accused has created a folder for the complainant and had posted the above mentioned allegations as a power point presentation (PPT) with 6 slides. The screenshots of the slides are also filed herewith and the screenshots may be treated as part and parcel of the complaint. In the said PPT, at Slide Nos. 1,2 and 3, the accused has listed out all the aforesaid companies elaborated in paragraph 13 of the complaint under the heading Asset Details 1, 2 and 3 respectively and at Slide No.4, the accused has displayed the complainant’s family lineage showing the name of his spouses and also have shown the names of his children under the heading “family tree”. It is submitted that at Slide No.5, the accused has displayed an alleged connection between the complainant and Sai Ram institutions under the heading “Sai Ram Connection” and at Slide No. 6, the accused had further defamed the complainant under the caption “T.R.Baalu History”, and the extract of the slide is reproduced below:

The complainant states that the aforesaid statements are per se false, baseless, scandalous and made by the accused with the intention to defame the complainant.

  1. The complainant submits that the accused’s aforesaid offending defamatory speech, video and postings have tarnished over 65 years of dedicated hard work and public service rendered by the complainant. Further, the accused has failed to disclose even a single credible source or proof for the allegations made in the speech. In fact, the accused have not even cared to verify if these wild accusations contain even an iota of truth to them. Hence it is evident that the accused is not exercising his democratic right to freedom of speech and fair criticism but is indulging in pure mudslinging activities for personal gain. It is well settled that right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions which include defamation. There is no right available to a political rival to defame a person through vitriolic, false, imaginary and fictitious stories which completely tarnishes the image of the complainant in society at large.
  2. The complainant submits that though the accused right to criticise the complainant flows from the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, however the said right is subject to the restrictions contained in Article 19(2). One of the exceptions to free speech is defamation. The Courts have held that when allegations are made against an individual that attacks his character or reputation, even an individual in public life, the allegations have to be on the basis of verified facts. The accused have a duty in law to have material basis or cogent evidence to make such allegations that tarnish the reputation and character of the Complainant. In the present case, the accused have offered no basis for his allegations and therefore, the accused have not met the legal threshold for verification. Further the accused have made defamatory allegations knowing full well the same are far from truth besides scandalous and malicious. Therefore defamation being a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) is not only considered as a criminal offence but also as a violation of a person’s right to privacy. In such a situation, the accused are liable to be prosecuted in law for defamation which is an infringement to the right to privacy.
  3. The Complainant states that the actions of the accused in making the aforementioned defamatory statements with scandalous imputations against the complainant ex-facie attracts the penal provisions under Section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
  4. The Complainant states that the accused is in the habit of regularly publishing defamatory content against the DMK party and its members including the Complainant to tarnish their image among the public. The Complainant also issued a legal notice dated 20.04.2023 to the Accused calling upon him to cease and desist from publishing defamatory content against the Complainant and to pay damages.
  5. The complainant submits that instead of complying with the same, or explaining the basis for his statements, the accused, through his counsel had issued a reply notice dated 24.04.2023 wherein further defamatory statements were made by this accused against the Complainant over and above the original offending speech and video titled “ DMK Files” played by the accused on 14.04.2023.
  6. The complainant submits that, In the said reply notice at para 3, the accused has stated that the Complainant has abused his position in the DMK party for personal gain and has further stated that the complainant attempted to procure gas for two companies owned by his family members in 2008 at a concessional rate. The accused has further stated that the company was granted concession because of the complainant’s intervention. Such an allegation is per se false and baseless. There is absolutely no material disclosed by the accused for making such an allegation. The complainant has never used or attempted to use his official position or position in the DMK party to procure gas for any company in which his family members are shareholders. In fact, when allocation of gas to one company Kings India Power Corporation Ltd was sought to be cancelled in the year 2004 out of political malice, the said company approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court by filing W.P. Nos. 29602 and 32441 of 2005 challenging the cancellation order and the High Court by its Order dated 10.10.2007 set aside the order of cancellation. The company had only taken legal recourse when it was aggrieved. Even otherwise not a single unit of gas was supplied to this company by GAIL despite the Order of the Hon’ble Court. Thus, the allegation of the accused is per se false, baseless and malicious and concocted for the purpose of defaming the complainant. The extract of the reply notice dated 24.04.2023 is reproduced below:

“3. My client vehemently denies that your client has been working night and day for the welfare of his constituents. My client states that your client has been abusing his position in the DMK Party for personal gains. Your clients tenure in parliament and government has always been plagued by controversy. It was reported by National Media that in 2008, your client attempted to procure gas for two companies owned by his two wives and two sons. It was reported that these companies, desiring gas at a concession, had been denied it by GAIL (India) Ltd. Finally they were granted the concession because of his interference. Later, in Parliament, your client is reported to have said: “ I just put in a word….. after the request of employees and shareholders of the two loss-making units.

  1. My client states that as Highways Minister in the UPA Government his performance was dismal. Eventually he was dropped from the union cabinet due to corruption charges. My client states that your client does not enjoy any great reputation to claim legal injury.
  2. My client stands by his comments made about your client during press conference on 14.04.2023. My client is fully aware that he is not officially or formally involved in all the 21 companies named in the press conference. Hence your defence based on the fact that he is not a Director or Shareholder is meaningless. However its my clients specific case that all the wealth in these companies has been generated out of political corruption. The object of providing the details of the family members of your client was to show that they are involved in these companies and are direct beneficiaries of your clients corruption. Your client client has not denied involvement of his family members in these companies. Hence there is no question of violation of privacy of any of his family members.
  3. Similarly the attempt of your client to distance himself from ‘Sairam Institutions’ is hollow because his daughter in law is the Treasurer of the Trust which is behind these institutions. My client states that your client’s daughter in law Tmt.Sharmila raja also runs a film production house called “Delta Studio”. Films have been produced under its banner.”
  4. The complainant states that the allegation that the wealth of the companies were generated out of “political corruption” is false, baseless, scandalous and defamatory. Similarly, the allegation that the family members of the complainant are “direct beneficiaries” of the complainant’s corruption is false, baseless and defamatory and made with reckless disregard for the truth.
  5. The complainant further states that para 6 of the reply notice sent by the accused which is extracted above is absurd and false. It shows that though the complainant knows that the Sai Ram Group of Institutions is owned by a family Trust in which the daughter in law of the Complainant is a member on her family’s side and has nothing to do with the complainant, he has proceeded to project as if the Trust’s assets are the assets of the complainant. That apart, projecting as if the Trust has benefitted from “political corruption” is false, baseless and defamatory and not on the basis of any evidence or materials.
  6. The complainant further submits that in the said reply notice 24.04.2023 issued by the accused through his advocate does not contain the signature of the accused. Therefore, the complainant caused to be issued another legal notice dated 04.05.2023 calling upon the accused to confirm that all the allegations contained in the reply notice dated 24.04.2023 were made and issued with the knowledge, consent and authorisation of the accused. However, the accused has not replied to the notice dated 04.05.2023. Therefore, it is to be deemed that the accused had caused to be issued the reply notice dated 24.04.2023 and he is liable for all costs and consequences arising therefrom.
  7. The complainant submits that the Complainant is filing this complaint against the accused for making defamatory statements against the complainant, thereby having committed the offences under Sections 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and hence the accused are liable to be prosecuted under Section 500of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and does not fall under any of the exceptions given under Section 499 of IPC. A bare perusal of the statements made by the accused on 14.04.2023 itself will clearly demonstrate that the accused has intentionally, wilfully and wantonly made these statements with the intention to defame and destroy the reputation of the complainant amongst the public.
  8. The Complainant submits that therefore, the accused has committed an offence of defamation under section 499 of the IPC which reads as under:
  9. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

 

  1. The complainant submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases has held that the right to reputation is part of the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No person has a right to defame another, even in exercise of his right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) since defamation is an exception to free speech under Article 19 (2).
  2. It is humbly submitted that in the case of In Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that reputation is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. In Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P.  (2013) 10 SCC 591 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“18. … Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property [and as such] it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others.”

 

  1. It is humbly submitted that in Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 SCC 417 it has been held as follows:

“. … Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the downtrodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented, and it is perceived as an honour rather than popularity.”

 

  1. It is humbly submitted that Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, it has been held as follows:

“80. The term “defamation” as used in Article 19(2) should not be narrowly construed. The conferment of a narrow meaning on the word would defeat the very purpose that the Founding Fathers intended to convey and further we do not find any justifiable reason to constrict the application.

…

Individuals constitute the collective. Law is enacted to protect the societal interest. The law relating to defamation protects the reputation of each individual in the perception of the public at large. It matters to an individual in the eyes of the society. Protection of individual right is imperative for social stability in a body polity and that is why the State makes laws relating to crimes. A crime affects the society. It causes harm and creates a dent in social harmony. When we talk of society, it is not an abstract idea or a thought in abstraction. There is a link and connect between individual rights and the society; and this connection gives rise to community interest at large. It is a concrete and visible phenomenon. Therefore, when harm is caused to an individual, the society as a whole is affected and the danger is perceived.

…

  1. [Ed. : Para 133 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./33/2016 dated 4-8-2016.] . In Charu Khurana v. Union of India [Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 161], it has been ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly cherished value. Thus perceived, right to honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents of right under Article 21. … To state that such right can be impinged and remains unprotected inter se private disputes pertaining to reputation would not be correct. Neither can this right be overridden and blotched notwithstanding malice, vile and venal attack to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another by stating that the same curbs and puts unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. There is no gainsaying that individual rights form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society. There can be no denial of the fact that the right to freedom of speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct. Simultaneously, right to life as is understood in the expansive horizon of Article 21 has its own significance.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further dealt with the balancing of the two conflicting fundamental rights as under:

  1. The aforementioned authorities clearly state that balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity. It is the duty of the Court to strike a balance so that the values are sustained. The submission is that continuance of criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC is constitutionally inconceivable as it creates a serious dent in the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is urged that to have defamation as a component of criminal law is an anathema to the idea of free speech which is recognised under the Constitution and, therefore, criminalisation of defamation in any form is an unreasonable restriction. We have already held that reputation is an inextricable aspect of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in order to sustain and protect the said reputation of an individual has kept the provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a part of law. The seminal point is permissibility of criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction as understood under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. To elucidate, the submission is that criminal defamation, a pre-Constitution law is totally alien to the concept of free speech. As stated earlier, the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is an individual’s fundamental right and, therefore, balancing of fundamental right is imperative. The Court has spoken about synthesis and overlapping of fundamental rights, and thus, sometimes conflicts between two rights and competing values. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, the right of another cannot be jeopardised. In this regard, reproduction of a passage from Noise Pollution (5), In re [Noise Pollution (5), In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733] would be apposite. It reads as follows: (SCC p. 746, para 11)

               

“11. … Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this aspect. Two decisions in this regard delivered by the High Courts have been brought to our notice wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2001 Del 455 : (2001) 93 DLT 28 (DB) : 2001 SCC OnLine Del 713] and P.A. Jacob v. Supt. of Police [P.A. Jacob v. Supt. of Police, AIR 1993 Ker 1 : 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 170] . We have carefully gone through the reasoning adopted in the two decisions and the principle of law laid down therein, in particular, the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in entire agreement therewith.”

 

We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid enunciation of law. Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21, we do not think it should be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom. It is not a restriction that has an inevitable consequence which impairs circulation of thought and ideas. In fact, it is control regard being had to another person’s right to go to court and state that he has been wronged and abused. He can take recourse to a procedure recognised and accepted in law to retrieve and redeem his reputation. Therefore, the balance between the two rights needs to be struck. “Reputation” of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech. The legislature in its wisdom has not thought it appropriate to abolish criminality of defamation in the obtaining social climate.

 

  1. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of “defamation” as provided under Section 499 IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must be have been made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence.”

 

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The Complainant states that the false, baseless and defamatory statements by the accused is done with the malicious intention to harm the reputation of the the complainant and is an attempt to defame the Complainant in the eyes of the public, knowing fully well that the aforesaid false allegations made against the Complainant who presently serving as a Member of Parliament for Sriperumbudur Constituency and also the Treasurer of the DMK party will cause severe damage and harm to the Complainant’s reputation. Hence, the actus reus and mens rea for the offence is also clearly established. The Complainant states that the abovementioned actions of the Accused amounts to defamation and thus attracts penal provision under Section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908.
  2. The Complainant submits that he has his permanent residence within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and all defamatory and derogatory videos made by the Accused were seen at the residence of Complainant and the defamatory video was viewed and read by various public within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court and in the aforesaid circumstances this Hon’ble Court will have jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and the complainant states that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as the damage to the complainant’s personal life, his reputation and goodwill amongst the public through the malafide action of the Accused has been caused in the area within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
  3. The Complainant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to prove his case through witnesses and complainant may be permitted to rely on the documents attached with the compliant. The documents filed along with the present complaint may be treated as part and parcel of the present complaint and for the sake of brevity the extracts therefrom are not being reproduced herein but it may always be construed as being part and parcel of the present complaint.
  4. The Complainant states that the present complaint has been made before this Hon’ble Court within the period of limitation.
  5. The Complainant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise any additional ground or to submit any additional documents which would be made available to him at a later stage.

 

 

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid and in the interest of justice, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be please to take cognizance of the present complaint, summon, try and punish the accused viz. K. Annamalai for offences under sections 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and pass such further and other orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai on this the 12th day of May, 2023.

 

 

COMPLAINANT                                       COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Sl.No. Date Description of the Document Remarks
1. 10.10.2007 Copy of the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP Nos.29602 and 32441 of 2005 Photocopy
2. 14.04.2023 Pen Drive containing the video shared by Accused in the Facebook page found at the URL “https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=u9e0cZ&ref=w atch_ permalink&v =63 40060979 378386” dated 14.04.2023 Downloaded copy
3. 11.05.2023 Certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the video shared by Accused in the Facebook page found at the URL “https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=u9e0cZ&ref=w atch_ permalink&v =63 40060979 378386” dated 14.04.2023 –
4. 14.04.2023 Copy of the Screenshots of the defamatory images extracted from the video made by the Accused at the Press Conference  
5. 11.05.2023 Certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the screenshots of the defamatory images extracted from the video made by the Accused at the Press Conference.  
6. 11.05.2023 Copy of Homepage of the webpage found at URL “https://enmannenmakk al.com”  
7. 11.05.2023 Certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  
8. 11.05.2023 Copy of the Homepage of the webpage “DMK Files” found at URL https://dmkfiles.in  
9. 11.05.2023 Certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  
10. 11.05.2023 Copy of the Screenshots of the defamatory Slides of the PPT “DMK Files” which is found at URL https://dmkfiles.in  
11. 11.05.2023 Certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the Screenshots of the defamatory Slides of the PPT “DMK Files” which is found at URL https://dmkfiles.in  
12. 16.04.2023 Legal Notice sent by the counsel of the Complainant along with postal receipt Original
13. 24.04.2023 Reply Notice sent by the Accused through his Counsel Original
14. 04.05.2023 Legal notice sent by the Counsel of the complainant Original

 

Dated at Chennai on this the 12th day of May, 2023.

 

 

COMPLAINANT                                       COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

 

LIST OF WITNESSES:

Witnesses will be disclosed at the time of trial.

 

Dated at Chennai on this the 12th day of May, 2023.

 

 

COMPLAINANT                                       COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, SAIDAPET AT CHENNAI

 

C.C NO.     OF 2023

 

In The Matter of:

T.R.Baalu,

S/o. Rajuthevar

No. 29, Raman Street, T. Nagar

Chennai – 600 017

 

…Complainant

Vs.

Thiru.  K. Annamalai,

S/o Kuppusamy,

“Kamalalayam”,

19, Vaidyaraman Street, Parthasarathi Puram,

  1. Nagar,

Chennai 600 017       …Accused

 

 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 199(1) & 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 R/W SECTION 499, 500, 501 & 502 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s P.WILSON ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Complainant

PH:9445601880

You may also like...