"He Wanted To Highlight Inefficiency Of Ruling Party": Madras HC Quashes Criminal Case Against AIADMK MP For Comments On MK Stalin & Other DMK Leaders

The Court was hearing a Criminal Original Petition filed by an AIADMK leader seeking to quash a complaint on the ground that the petitioner was maliciously victimised for being vociferous against the Ruling Party/DMK for its misdeed and misrule.

The bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran observed, “…no evidence to show that the speech of the petitioner disturbed the public tranquillity or there was any hatred or ill will caused between the members of religious, race, language or regional group etc…petitioner wants to highlight the inefficiency of the Ruling party for not utilising Rs.1602 crores allotted to them for the scheme.”

Senior Advocate R..John Sathyan appeared for the Appellant and Advocate KMD Muhilan appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

It is the case of the State that a sitting Member of the Parliament and former Minister had not maintained decorum and dignity of the office he holds as he while participating in the hunger strike gave a speech in which he called Chief Minister Mr.M.K.Stalin, as an inefficient person. He said that Mr Stalin had collected a commission of 10% to 20% for government work, sold ganja in schools and turned the Department of School Education into the Department of sexual abuse. He said that despite granting Rs.1602 crores, the Chief Minister is not capable of completing the project. Hence, a Criminal complaint was filed under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 506(1) of IPC.

The Court said that the alleged offences were related to uttering words prejudicial to maintaining harmony, intent to provoke a breach of peace, statement against State/public tranquillity and criminal intimidation.

The Court said that a complaint drafted on consultation and presented 40 days after the alleged offences of promoting enmity, causing disturbance to maintaining harmony, insult or intent to provoke the breach of peace or attempt to disturb public tranquillity make no sense when no untoward incident reported because of the alleged speech.

The Court said that the utterance made is not to the standard of a person, who represents the citizen in the Parliament, but as per the Court, the utterance may attract other offences under IPC but not Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), 506(1) of IPC, which relates to the public peace, tranquillity and harmony between the community.

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Mohammad Wajid and another v. State of U.P and others reported in [(2023) SCC Online SC 951] and quoted, “Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace.”

The Court said that the speech of the petitioner read as a whole does not carry any ingredient to charge him under any of the above offences.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint and allowed the Criminal Original Petition.

Respondent: Adv. K.M.D.Muhilan