A M RATHINAM Vs. S SELLAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging opprobrious visual artistic work designed against lawyers and legal profession in a Tamil movie called 'Sivakasi', pocketful private complaints came to be filed against the Producer, Director and Actor of the movie before various Judicial Magistrate Courts in the State and to quash the proceedings set in motion on such complaints, the above petitions have been filed. Crl. R.C. No. 710 of 2006 has been filed challenging the order dated 15.6.2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 748 of 2006 in C.C. No. 335 of 2005 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, in and by which, the trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioners to recall the non-bailable warrants issued against them. Since the Criminal Original Petitions and the Revision case are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The allegation in one of the private complaints (pertaining to Crl. O.P. No. 33757 of 2005) is that on 16.11.2005 the respondent, an Advocate by profession, went to a Theatre at Thiruthuraipoondi along with his friends to watch the movie titled 'Sivakasi' and, in the said movie, the legal profession is scornfully ridiculed through an artist appearing in an unusual background of being present in the attire of Advocate at tea stalls and platform with a Board hanging 'cases of pickpocketing, chain snatching and teasing consulted here'. Further, wherever the artist appears in the role of Advocate, the profession is belittled extremely and the respondent, being an Advocate, felt very much ashamed on account of the projections made about the legal profession and lawyers and, while leaving the theatre, his friends mocked at him on account of the impact of the movie, therefore, the petitioners, in their respective capacities as Producer, Director and Actor are liable to be proceeded against for offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

(3.) Initially, by way of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the one and only purpose behind production of the movie was to entertain the viewers and the scenes in question were in no way intended to offend, wound or nettle the feelings of anyone including the legal fraternity, for, in the inceptive slot itself, the message depicted is that the characters appearing in the movie are apocryphal and suppositious; that immediately after coming to know that certain scenes were sensed to be objectionable and targeted at the legal profession, instantly those scenes were removed, thereby the petitioners made it clear that they did not actually intend what later was magnified as a big issue; and that, even on legal aspect, mens rea from the inception is totally absent in the case and further, though the affected class of persons, according to the complainant, generally refers to lawyers in view of the alleged projections in the movie, actually such aggrieved persons not being a determinable class of individuals, there is no legal basis for taking congnizance of the complaints.