RANGARAJ PANDE AND OTHER Vs. KUMARAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur.

(2.) The respondent/complainant had filed a private compliant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, after recording the evidence of the respondent/complainant, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused. The allegations in the private complaint in C.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur are as follows. The respondent/complainant is a follower of Periyar. On 28.03.2015 and 29.03.2015, the President of Dravidar Kazhagam Mr.K.Veeramani was interviewed by Mr.Rangaraj Pande, the first petitioner in a programme named "Kelvikkenna Padil" (what is the answer for the question) telecast on Thanthi T.V. One of the questions posed to Mr.K.Veeramani was "why did you profess that between a snake and a Brahmin attack the Brahmin first" for which Mr.K.Veeramani replied that it is a false propaganda and if it is proved that Periyar had stated so, he would resign his post as President in his party viz., Dravidar Kazhagam. The first petitioner Mr.Rangaraj Pande, showed a slide from a book titled "Hindutva Padaiyeduppu", [the invasion by Hindutva] which showed that Periyar had stated thus. Neither the author of the book nor the publisher of the book was revealed by the first petitioner. More over, a few days later, there was another telecast tiled " the clarification by Dravida Kazhagam", which in fact was not a clarification but a set of questions, for which no explanation has been given till date by the petitioners. According to the complainant, Periyar was a revolutionary leader, who tirelessly worked towards equality in the society and has won recognition all over the world and earned many awards for his contribution to the society, especially in the emancipation of the downtrodden and oppressed sections of the society, including women. Both the petitioners were sought to explain as to why legal action should not be initiated against them for their above act and were asked to apologise in public to which effect a legal notice dated 15.07.2015 was sent and a reply dated 27.07.2015 was received. Another rejoinder was sent to them, replying to the false explanation given in their reply notice, which again was replied by the petitioners containing false statements. According to the complainant, both the petitioners intended to bring disrepute to the great leader Periyar, thereby inviting the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation.

(3.) The petitioners on their behalf have categorically denied the allegation that there was ill-will or malice and the complainant not being an "aggrieved person" withing the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, has no locus-standi to file the compliant and also that nowhere in the question posed to the guest Mr.K.Veeramani there was any mention about the leader Periyar. In such circumstances, taking cognizance of the complaint is erroneous, when the complaint itself is a sheer abuse of the judicial process.