SHILPA SHETTY Vs. T DAKSHINAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these Criminal Original Petitions are Accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in C.C.NO.308 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, facing prosecution for the alleged offences under Sections 292(2), 109 I.P.C read with Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Section 3 of the Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act. THE first accused in the said case is the Publisher, Printer and Editor of a Tamil Daily known as "Tamil Murasu". THE respondent herein has instituted the said case by filing a private complaint. Seeking to quash the said case, the petitioners have come forward with these two criminal original petitions.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE respondent is an advocate practicing at District Court, Madurai. He claims that he is a regular reader of dailies, including "Tamil Murasu". THE daily "Tamil Murasu" dated 26.12.2005, 27.12.2005, 06.01.2006, 16.01.2006, 27.01.2006, 29.01.2006 and 06.02.2006 carried the pictures of the petitioners, which are obscene and lascivious. THE complaint further proceeds to say that apart from the filthy portrayal of the petitioners, there were also slogans written, which would arouses insidious feeling corrupting the younger generation. It is also stated in the complaint that the continuous publication of such third rated publications will only help in the promotion of crimes against women and unhealthy social trends and apart from taking legal action against the perpetrators of such social evil confiscation of such pictures, the regulations laid under the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act 1967 may be resorted to. THE complainant further states that the pictures were printed and circulated with filthy slogans by the first accused, who is the Editor and Printer of the daily with the active connivance and co-operation of the people like the accused Nos.2 and 3 and many others.

(3.) BEFORE going into the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, let me consider the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. He would submit that the petitioners, against whom N.B.Ws are pending and who have not cared to appear before the lower Court despite the fact that the petitions filed by them under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C were dismissed, cannot be heard to maintain these petitions before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent would also rely on a Judgment of this Court in Gladya Lilly Vs. The Superintendents, Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zonal Units, Chennai reported in 1999 (2) L.W. (Crl) 814 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a similar question has held as follows:-