ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register and investigate the case on the information available to them with regard to the informatory speech of criminal intimidation of assassination of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made by Dr. Subramania Swamy on 18-3-1995 and 4-4-1995 at Tambaram and Pudukkottai respectively as per publication in “Indian Express’ dated 7-4-1995.
2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate of this Court has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation, since the interest of public are involved. The petitioner is seeking a direction, directing the respondents to act on the basis of a newspaper report. Normally this Court cannot rely upon newspaper reports. If at all any one wants to rely upon the newspaper reports, they have to establish the averments made in the newspaper report by some independent evidence. Hence, I do not think it is advisable to act upon the newspaper report alone.
3. The petitioner has not shown any provision that the respondents have to act suo motu on the basis of the newspapers report. In the absence of any material to show that the respondents have failed to discharge their official functions, no mandamus can be issued.
4. Moreover, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 11 of his affidavit as follows :
“When I contacted the second and third respondents on 15-4-1994 and enquired whether any case was registered against Dr. Swamy, in connection with the criminal intimidation of assassination, they informed me that they have not registered any case as there was no complaint from any quarter. I was under the impression that they would have registered the case suo motu.”
When the petitioner fully aware that the respondents have not registered a case, then the petitioner could have given a complaint against the said Dr. Subramaniaswamy for criminal intimidation. He has not chosen to file any complaint before the respondents. Further he expects the respondents to act suo motu. The Supreme Court has held in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, , that the locus standi of the complainant is a subject foreign to criminal jurisprudence. It is open to any citizen to lodge a first information report or file a complaint and set the machinery of the criminal law in motion. When that be so, the petitioner, as a practicing lawyer, could have given a complaint instead of insisting that the respondent should take suo motu action in this matter.
5. Normally the aggrieved person would file the complaint against the culprit. Only in cases where the aggrieved person is not in a position to lodge a complaint, the third party can set the law in motion. In this case, the aggrieved person could have lodged a complaint. The informatory speech do not reveal any public interest. The alleged accused has made statement against an individual and as such it is open to the individual to lodge a complaint.
6. Even though the petitioner seeks a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register and investigate the case on the information available to them with regard to the informatory speech of criminal intimidation as per the paper publication, in ‘Indian Express’ dated 7-4-95. The petitioner has not even chosen to file the paper publication wherein the alleged statement of Dr. Subramaniyaswamy was published. The petitioner has filed in his typed set the paper report wherein it is stated the Chief Minister appealed to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India, urging them to initiate correctional steps immediately against the said Dr. Subramaniyaswamy referring to the speeches made at Tambaram and Pudukkottai. The petitioner is seeking the relief only on those speeches referred to by the Chief Minister. That paper publication cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner himself has produced the report from the paper stating that the Chief Minister had taken action against the speeches referred to by the petitioner. I do not think that the writ petitioner filed by way of public interest litigation can be maintained. Hence the writ petitioner is dismissed.
7. Petition dismissed.