{"id":255238,"date":"2007-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-13T04:47:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T23:17:46","slug":"dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                       DATED   :  19.11.2007\n\n                             CORAM:\n\n             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM\n\n         Criminal Original Petition No.33138 of 2007 \n                              AND\n           Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n                                \n1.  Dr. R.Krishnamurthy\n    Editor and Partner\n    Dinamalar Tamil Daily Newspaper\n    No.219 \n    Anna Salai\n    Chennai 600 002.\n\n2.  Dr. R.Lakshmipathy\n    Publisher and Partner\n    Dinamalar Tamil Daily Newspaper\n    No.219  \n    Anna Salai\n    Chennai 600 002    \t\t\t\t..Petitioners\n\n\n            Vs\n\n\nSun TV Network Limited\nRep. by its Authorized Person L.Jotheeswaran\nNo.367 and 369 \nAnna Salai\nTeynampet\nChennai  600 018             \t\t\t..Respondent\n\n\n\nPrayer:  Petition filed under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure to call for the records in C.C.No.7707 of 2007  pending\non  the  file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court XVII,  Chennai\nand quash the complaint filed by the respondent.\n\n\n\n    For Petitioners : Mr. S.Elambharathi\n\n    For Respondent  : Mr. P.S.Raman, Sr, counsel for M\/s.B.K.Girish Neelakantan\n\n\n\n                                \n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The above criminal original petition has been filed by  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  to  quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.7707  of<\/p>\n
2007  pending  on  the  file of the XVII Metropolitan  Magistrate<\/p>\n
Court,  Chennai.   On a complaint filed by the respondent  herein<\/p>\n
under  Section 200<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged<\/p>\n
offence under Sections 500<\/a> and 501<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code,  the<\/p>\n
learned  Magistrate has issued process against  the  accused  and<\/p>\n
being  aggrieved  by that the petitioners have  filed  the  above<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      2.  The  first petitioner is the Editor of the Daily  Tamil<\/p>\n
Newspaper-Dinamalar and the second petitioner  is  its  Publisher<\/p>\n
and they are also partners of the firm-Dinamalar.  The respondent<\/p>\n
is  a  company  incorporated under the Companies Act<\/a>  1956.   The<\/p>\n
alleged imputation complained of by the respondent is that a news<\/p>\n
item  was  published on 30.09.2007 in Dinamalar Daily wherein  in<\/p>\n
the  said  news item certain statements were made  and  the  said<\/p>\n
statements  are perse defamatory and it was further alleged  that<\/p>\n
the  same  was made with an intention to bring bad reputation  to<\/p>\n
the complainant among the general public, subscribers and viewers<\/p>\n
of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      3.  The  petitioners  seek  to  quash  the  said  complaint<\/p>\n
contending  that  a  corporation  cannot  complain  of  loss   of<\/p>\n
reputation  as the Corporation has no reputation apart  from  its<\/p>\n
property or trade;  it cannot bring a prosecution for words which<\/p>\n
merely  affect its honour or dignity;  a reading of the averments<\/p>\n
in   the  complaint  and  the  sworn  statement  shows  that  the<\/p>\n
complainant   \/  respondent  is  complaining  that  the   alleged<\/p>\n
statement  in  the  news item has affected its  honour  and  name<\/p>\n
whereas  the  name of the respondent was not at all mentioned  in<\/p>\n
the  statement, but only the name of ‘Sun DTH’ was mentioned  and<\/p>\n
the  alleged imputations published in the petitioners’  newspaper<\/p>\n
is  not against the complainant.  It is the further contention of<\/p>\n
the  petitioners that the complainant is not an aggrieved  person<\/p>\n
and as such it cannot file the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      4.  When  the  above  petition came  up  for  admission  on<\/p>\n
06.11.2007, Mr.J.Ravindran learned counsel took notice on  behalf<\/p>\n
of  the respondent.  As this Court was of a prima facie view that<\/p>\n
the  quash  petition could not be entertained at this stage,  the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel  on  either side were requested  to  make  their<\/p>\n
submissions  and accordingly elaborate submissions were  made  on<\/p>\n
either   side.    Mr.S.Elambharathi  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners  reiterated the above said contentions put  forth  in<\/p>\n
the quash petition and elaborated the same.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      5. The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for  the petitioners is that the complainant \/ respondent  herein<\/p>\n
has  no  locus standi to maintain the complaint.  Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted  that  the  company may maintain a  prosecution  or  an<\/p>\n
action  for a libel affecting its property, but not for  a  libel<\/p>\n
merely  affecting  personal  reputation  as  a  company  has   no<\/p>\n
reputation  apart  from  its  property  or  trade;    the   words<\/p>\n
complained of must reflect on the management of its business  and<\/p>\n
must  injuriously  affect  the  company,  as  distinct  from  the<\/p>\n
individual  who  compose it;  the alleged libel must  attack  the<\/p>\n
company  in its method of conducting its affairs, must accuse  it<\/p>\n
of  fraud or mismanagement, or must attack its financial position<\/p>\n
and  it  cannot bring a prosecution for words which merely affect<\/p>\n
its  honour  or dignity.  Learned counsel further submitted  that<\/p>\n
the  name of the complainant namely ‘Sun TV Net Work Limited’  is<\/p>\n
not  mentioned as such in the impugned publication  and  on  that<\/p>\n
ground  also  the  complainant  \/  respondent  herein  cannot  be<\/p>\n
considered to be an aggrieved person.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.  According  to the learned counsel for  the  petitioners<\/p>\n
there is no allegation in the complaint that the property of  the<\/p>\n
company is affected.  Learned counsel submitted that the impugned<\/p>\n
statement  refers  only to ‘Sun DTH’ which is  a  separate  legal<\/p>\n
entity  and ‘Sun DTH’ is not the complainant.  In support of  his<\/p>\n
above  said  contentions,  the learned counsel  relied  upon  the<\/p>\n
following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\n
      (I)  A.I.R.  1935 Rangoon 108 (Maung Chit  v.  Maung  Tun<\/a>),<\/p>\n
wherein it is observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
          “…  A corporation may maintain a prosecution<\/p>\n
          or   an  action  for  a  libel  affecting  its<\/p>\n
          property, but not for a libel merely affecting<\/p>\n
          personal  reputation as a corporation  has  no<\/p>\n
          reputation apart from its property  or  trade.<\/p>\n
          The  words complained of must reflect  on  the<\/p>\n
          management   of   its   business   and    must<\/p>\n
          injuriously   affect   the   corporation,   as<\/p>\n
          distinct from the individuals who compose  it.<\/p>\n
          The  alleged libel must attack the corporation<\/p>\n
          in  its method of conducting its affairs, must<\/p>\n
          accuse  it of fraud or mismanagement, or  must<\/p>\n
          attack  its  financial  position.   It  cannot<\/p>\n
          bring  a  prosecution for words  which  merely<\/p>\n
          affect  its  honour or dignity.  Moreover,  it<\/p>\n
          cannot maintain a prosecution for words  which<\/p>\n
          reflect,  not upon it as a body, but upon  its<\/p>\n
          members  individually, unless  special  damage<\/p>\n
          has thereby been caused to it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
      (II)  AIR 1985 Bombay 229 (Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.)<\/p>\n
Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagmohan<\/a>) wherein in paragraph 22 it is observed  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “22.  It is well settled that a corporation  cannot<\/p>\n
        suffer  damages in mind or body.  But  as  held  in<\/p>\n
        Metroplitan  Saloom  Ombinus Co.  Ltd.  v.  Hawkins<\/p>\n
        (1859) 4 H & N 87 : South Helton Coal Co. v.  North<\/p>\n
        Eastern News Association Ltd. (1894) 1 Q.B.  133  :<\/p>\n
        D.L.  Caterers  Ltd. v. D’Ajou<\/a> (1945)  K.B.  364  :<\/p>\n
        Lewis  v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) A.C. 234  and<\/p>\n
        Selby  Bridge Proprietors v. Sunday Telegraph  (The<\/p>\n
        Times  Feb. 17, 1966) a trading corporation  has  a<\/p>\n
        business  reputation and can sue for defamation  in<\/p>\n
        respect  of a publication calculated to injure  its<\/p>\n
        reputation  in  the  way  of  its  business.    The<\/p>\n
        position  is succinctly stated in Spencer Bower  on<\/p>\n
        Actionable Defamation at Pp.278-279:<\/p>\n
          “It  is obvious that ‘reputation’ in the sense<\/p>\n
          in  which  alone  it  concerns  the  topic  of<\/p>\n
          defamation  has  relation  to  the  particular<\/p>\n
          person  enjoying  it.   But  it  must  not  be<\/p>\n
          forgotten  that  ‘person’  for  this   purpose<\/p>\n
          includes  an artificial person;   that  is  to<\/p>\n
          say, it includes both ‘a body of persons’  and<\/p>\n
          a  firm  ….’.   That a commercial  ‘body  of<\/p>\n
          persons’ has a trading character and  can  sue<\/p>\n
          in  respect  of a publication to  injure  that<\/p>\n
          trading   character  is   now   clearly   well<\/p>\n
          established.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
        It  may be that the innuendo or the imputation  may<\/p>\n
        be  directed  against an individual connected  with<\/p>\n
        the  management of the commercial body of  persons.<\/p>\n
        But  if  it is of such nature as to not only defame<\/p>\n
        the   individual  but  also  injure   the   trading<\/p>\n
        character  of the commercial body of persons,  then<\/p>\n
        both  the individual as well as the commercial body<\/p>\n
        will have a cause of action to sue for defamation.”<\/p>\n
      (III)  AIR 1925 Calcutta 1121 (Pratap Chandra Guha  Roy  V.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Emperor) wherein in paragraph 17 it is observed as here-under:<\/p>\n
         “17.  The other questions raised apply equally  to<\/p>\n
         both  the charges.  The first question is  whether<\/p>\n
         the  complainant was the person defamed or, in the<\/p>\n
         words, whether  he is a “person aggrieved” by  the<\/p>\n
         offence as contemplated under Section 198<\/a>  of  the<\/p>\n
         Criminal Procedure Code, so as to entitle  him  to<\/p>\n
         maintain the prosecution.  This is what is  stated<\/p>\n
         in  the  petition of complaint: “That  it  appears<\/p>\n
         therefore  that  in making the above  charges  Dr.<\/p>\n
         Pratab  Chandra Guha Roy has intended to harm  the<\/p>\n
         reputation of the police and other high  officials<\/p>\n
         of  the  British  Government  and  the  Government<\/p>\n
         themselves.   ….  The  allegations   are   being<\/p>\n
         announced  throughout  the  District  and  it   is<\/p>\n
         therefore  necessary that their falsity should  be<\/p>\n
         proved  in  the  most effective  manner  viz.,  by<\/p>\n
         trial   in  Court  of  law,  etc.’   The   learned<\/p>\n
         Standing  Counsel  relies  on  ex-planation  2  of<\/p>\n
         Section  499<\/a>, I.P.C<\/a>., as giving the complaint  the<\/p>\n
         right   to   maintain   the   prosecution,    That<\/p>\n
         explanation  runs  as follow: “It  may  amount  to<\/p>\n
         defamation  to  make  an imputation  concerning  a<\/p>\n
         company   or  an  association  or  collection   of<\/p>\n
         persons as such,” the contention seams to be  that<\/p>\n
         in  this, case there was defamation of the  police<\/p>\n
         force,  i.e., a “collection of persons  as  such.”<\/p>\n
         As   far  as  I  am  aware  those  words  in   the<\/p>\n
         explanation  have not been judicially  dealt  with<\/p>\n
         in  any reported case.  In my opinion those  words<\/p>\n
         mean  that a collection of persons as such may  be<\/p>\n
         collectively  detained in the  same  manner  as  a<\/p>\n
         “company.”   The  general principles  on  which  a<\/p>\n
         company  may  be said to have been  defamed  would<\/p>\n
         therefore  apply equally to the case where  it  is<\/p>\n
         alleged  that a collection of persons as such  has<\/p>\n
         been  detained.   Those  general  principles  were<\/p>\n
         formulated    by    Chief   Baron    Pollock    in<\/p>\n
         ‘Metropolitan  Saloon  Omnibus  Go.   v.   Hawkins<\/p>\n
         (1859)   4   H.&N.87,  where  he  said:   “It   (a<\/p>\n
         corporation)  could  not sue  in  respects  of  an<\/p>\n
         imputation  of  murder  or  incest,  or  adultery,<\/p>\n
         because  it  could not commit those  crimes.   Nor<\/p>\n
         could   it   sue  in  respect  of  a   charge   of<\/p>\n
         corruption, for a corporation cannot be guilty  of<\/p>\n
         corruption,  although  the individuals  composing,<\/p>\n
         it  may be.”  This was adopted in Mayor, (do.,  or<\/p>\n
         Manchester v. Williams (1893) 1 Q.B. 94  where  it<\/p>\n
         was  laid  down  that a corporation  may  sue  for<\/p>\n
         libel  affecting property, not for  one  affecting<\/p>\n
         personal  reputation.   Similarly,  Lopez,   L.J.,<\/p>\n
         said  in  South  Hetton Coal Co. v. North  Eastern<\/p>\n
         News   Association   (1894)   1   Q.B.   133:   “A<\/p>\n
         corporation  or company could not sue  in  respect<\/p>\n
         of  a  charge  of  murder, or incest  or  adultery<\/p>\n
         because  it  could not commit those  crimes.   Nor<\/p>\n
         could  it sue in respect of a charge of corruption<\/p>\n
         or  of an assault because a corporation cannot  be<\/p>\n
         guilty  of  corruption or of an  assault  although<\/p>\n
         the  individuals  composing  it  may  be.”   These<\/p>\n
         observations  are quite apposite to  the  question<\/p>\n
         before  us and in my opinion the police  force  as<\/p>\n
         such  cannot complain of any imputation as regards<\/p>\n
         its  personal  reputation  because  it  cannot  be<\/p>\n
         guilty   of   beastly  {conduct,   nor   can   the<\/p>\n
         collective  body  be  guilty  of  the  offence  of<\/p>\n
         bitting  off the ‘nipple of the breast of a  woman<\/p>\n
         or  of  biting the cheek of a woman.   The  matter<\/p>\n
         may  be  tested in another way.  Suppose  somebody<\/p>\n
         laid  a complaint before a Magistrate in terms  of<\/p>\n
         the  words of the charges in this case, would  any<\/p>\n
         Magistrate issue process against the police  force<\/p>\n
         as  such or any member of the police force?  I  am<\/p>\n
         sure   no  Magistrate,  would.   In  my  judgment,<\/p>\n
         therefore,  the  charges fail on the  ground  that<\/p>\n
         they  refer  to  the personal conduct  only  of  a<\/p>\n
         collection of persons as such”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     (IV) AIR 1969 Punjab & Hariyana 150 (P.K.O.H. Mills v. Tilak<\/p>\n
Chand<\/a>) wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision certain<\/p>\n
passages  from  ‘Winfield on Tort’  and ‘Salmond on  the  Law  of<\/p>\n
Torts’ have been extracted, which read as follows:<\/p>\n
    “8.  Law  relating to the capacity of  corporations  to<\/p>\n
    sue  in  tort  is  summed  up  in  “Winfield  on  Tort”<\/p>\n
    (Seventh Edition at page 80) in the following words:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         “A  corporation  can  sue  for  torts  committed<\/p>\n
         against it, but there are certain torts which it<\/p>\n
         is  impossible to commit against a  corporation.<\/p>\n
         Such are assault and personal defamation.  Thus,<\/p>\n
         a  corporation cannot sue for libel a person who<\/p>\n
         charges  it with bribery and corruption although<\/p>\n
         the individual members of it might be able to do<\/p>\n
         so,  but  if  a  libel  or slander  affects  the<\/p>\n
         management  or its trade or business,  then  the<\/p>\n
         corporation  itself  can  sue;  as   where   the<\/p>\n
         workmen’s  cottages of a colliery  company  were<\/p>\n
         falsely  described  in  a  newspaper  as  highly<\/p>\n
         insanitary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    In  “Salmond on Law of Torts” (fourteenth edition), the<\/p>\n
    same  subject is dealt with at pages 614-615  in  these<\/p>\n
    terms:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
         “In  general a corporation may sue  for  a  tort<\/p>\n
         (e.g.,  malicious presentation of a  winding  up<\/p>\n
         petition) in the same way as an individual.  The<\/p>\n
         only qualifications are (i) the tort must not be<\/p>\n
         of  a  kind  which  it is impossible  to  commit<\/p>\n
         against  a  corporation e.g., assault  or  false<\/p>\n
         imprisonment;   (ii) in case of  defamation,  it<\/p>\n
         must  be shown that the defamatory matter is  of<\/p>\n
         such nature that its tendency is to cause actual<\/p>\n
         damage  to  the  corporation in respect  of  its<\/p>\n
         property  or business.  Thus an action of  libel<\/p>\n
         will  lie  at  the suit of a trading corporation<\/p>\n
         charged  with  insolvency or with  dishonest  or<\/p>\n
         incompetent management.  But where there  is  no<\/p>\n
         actual damage, nor any tendency to produce  such<\/p>\n
         damage,  no action will lie at the suit for  the<\/p>\n
         corporation;   the  only persons  who  have  any<\/p>\n
         cause  of  action are the individual members  or<\/p>\n
         agents of the corporation who have been defamed.<\/p>\n
         So it has been held that a municipal corporation<\/p>\n
         cannot sue for libel charging it with corruption<\/p>\n
         and  bribery in the administration of  municipal<\/p>\n
         affairs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    9.  We  would  have had to judge the  capacity  of  the<\/p>\n
    appellant  to  sue by applying the tests laid  down  in<\/p>\n
    the  above-quoted texts of authority if the  appellants<\/p>\n
    were  a  corporation  in  law.  Unfortunately  for  the<\/p>\n
    appellants,  however, it is not even  a  legal  person.<\/p>\n
    It  is  a  partnership firm.  It is well known  that  a<\/p>\n
    firm  is  merely a compendious artificial name  adopted<\/p>\n
    by  its  partners  and is not itself  a  legal  entity.<\/p>\n
    Libel  or  slander  of a partnership  firm  may  indeed<\/p>\n
    amount to defamation of its partners.  But then  it  is<\/p>\n
    the  partners  who may in such an eventuality  sue  and<\/p>\n
    not the firm”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      (V)  (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 105 (P.Varadarajan v. G.K.Mani,<\/p>\n
M.L.A<\/a>.) wherein in paragraph 18 it is observed as follows:<\/p>\n
        “18.  The  imputations found in the  article  under<\/p>\n
        challenge do not relate to the complainant  or  his<\/p>\n
        political  party,  there is no  allegation  of  the<\/p>\n
        political activity of Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in  the<\/p>\n
        aforesaid  article.   As  there  is  no  defamatory<\/p>\n
        imputation levelled against the political party  of<\/p>\n
        the   complainant  and  Dr.Anbumani  Ramadoss,  the<\/p>\n
        complainant  cannot claim that  he  falls  squarely<\/p>\n
        under  the category of “some persons aggrieved”  by<\/p>\n
        the  offence of defamation.  PMK was not the target<\/p>\n
        of  attack  in  the article which is put  to  test.<\/p>\n
        Therefore,  the respondent\/complainant who  is  the<\/p>\n
        President of PMK has no locus standi to prefer  the<\/p>\n
        complaint for an offence under Section 500<\/a>  of  the<\/p>\n
        Indian Penal Code”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       (VI)   AIR  1972  Supreme  Court  2609  (G.Narasimhan   v.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
T.V.Chokkappa) wherein in paragraphs 10 and 13 it is observed  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
          “10.  A  learned Single Judge of the High  Court,<\/p>\n
          who  heard  the said applications,  rejected  the<\/p>\n
          said contention in the following words:<\/p>\n
            “The  Dravida  Kazhagam is  an  identifiable<\/p>\n
            group.  The complainant is a member of  this<\/p>\n
            Kazhagam.  He  was  the  Chairman   of   the<\/p>\n
            Reception Committee in the conference. He is<\/p>\n
            active  member of the Dravida  Kazhagam.  He<\/p>\n
            was  one  of those who piloted and sponsored<\/p>\n
            the  resolution. Certainly he  is  a  person<\/p>\n
            aggrieved within the meaning of Section  198<\/a><\/p>\n
            of   the   Criminal  Procedure   Code.   The<\/p>\n
            complaint by him is competent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
          “11. …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           12. …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           13. On these contentions, the principal question<\/p>\n
          for determination is whether the respondent could<\/p>\n
          be  said  to  be an aggrieved person entitled  to<\/p>\n
          maintain  the  complaint within  the  meaning  of<\/p>\n
          Section  198<\/a> of the Code. That section lays  down<\/p>\n
          that  no Magistrate shall take cognizance  of  an<\/p>\n
          offence falling inter alia under Chapter  XXI  of<\/p>\n
          the  Penal  Code (that is, Sections 499<\/a>  to  502<\/a>)<\/p>\n
          except  upon  a  complaint made by  some  persons<\/p>\n
          aggrieved  of  such offence. Section  198<\/a>,  thus,<\/p>\n
          lays down an exception to the general rule that a<\/p>\n
          complaint can be filed by anybody whether  he  is<\/p>\n
          an  aggrieved  person or not, and  modifies  that<\/p>\n
          rule  by  permitting only an aggrieved person  to<\/p>\n
          move  a  Magistrate in cases of  defamation.  The<\/p>\n
          section  is  mandatory, so that if  a  Magistrate<\/p>\n
          were  to  take  cognizance  of  the  offence   of<\/p>\n
          defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not<\/p>\n
          an  aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of<\/p>\n
          an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would<\/p>\n
          be void and illegal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      7.  Countering the said submissions Mr. P.S.Raman,  learned<\/p>\n
Additional   Advocate  General,  appearing  on  behalf   of   Mr.<\/p>\n
J.Ravindran  learned counsel for the respondent by  referring  to<\/p>\n
the  following  portion in the impugned news item  which  is  the<\/p>\n
subject matter of the complaint namely,<\/p>\n
\tVERNACULAR  ( TAMIL )  PORTION DELETED<\/p>\n
submitted  that  the words <\/p>\n
\tVERNACULAR  ( TAMIL )  PORTION DELETED<\/p>\n
found    in     the      above     said     extracted     passage <\/p>\n
reveals      only      to     the      complainant  \/  respondent<\/p>\n
herein  and  the  other allegations contained therein  are  perse<\/p>\n
defamatory  as  it lowers the reputation of the respondent  among<\/p>\n
the  general  public, subscribers and viewers of the  respondent.<\/p>\n
Learned  Additional Advocate General further  submitted  that  in<\/p>\n
paragraph  8  of the complaint it is stated that one Mr.Manoharan<\/p>\n
called and informed about the publication in the Dinamalar  Daily<\/p>\n
dated 30.09.2007 and he stated that after reading the publication<\/p>\n
he  doubted  whether to buy Sun DTH or not and also  whether  Sun<\/p>\n
Television  Group  of  Companies  followed  all  the  rules   and<\/p>\n
regulations  made  in  this  regard.  According  to  the  learned<\/p>\n
Additional  Advocate  General, the above said  averments  in  the<\/p>\n
complaint  indicate  that impugned news  item  has  affected  the<\/p>\n
complainant’s  property and trade.  Learned  Additional  Advocate<\/p>\n
General  by  relying  upon explanation 2 to Section  499<\/a>  of  the<\/p>\n
Indian  Penal  Code  submitted  that  in  respect  of  defamatory<\/p>\n
imputations against a company, the complaint filed by the company<\/p>\n
is  valid  as  the  company  is the  aggrieved  person.   Learned<\/p>\n
Additional Advocate General further submitted that at this  stage<\/p>\n
it  is  not the function of this court to appreciate the evidence<\/p>\n
or  scope  and meaning of the statement contained in the impugned<\/p>\n
news  item and further submitted that the Court has to  read  the<\/p>\n
complaint  as  a  whole  and  find out  whether  the  allegations<\/p>\n
disclosed  constitute an offence under Section 499<\/a> of the  Indian<\/p>\n
Penal  Code  triable  by the Magistrate and when  the  Magistrate<\/p>\n
prima  facie  came  to the conclusion that the allegations  might<\/p>\n
come within the meaning of ‘defamation’ under Section 499<\/a> of  the<\/p>\n
Indian  Penal Code and had taken cognizance, this Court  may  not<\/p>\n
embark  upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion  to<\/p>\n
hold,  whether  or  not  the allegations made  in  the  complaint<\/p>\n
constitute  an  offence  punishable under  Section  500<\/a>.  Learned<\/p>\n
Additional  Advocate  General  in  support  of  his  above   said<\/p>\n
submissions relied upon the following decisions:-<\/p>\n
      (i)  (1996)  6  Supreme Court Cases 263 (Shatrughna  Prasad<\/p>\n
Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi<\/a>) wherein in paragraphs 10 and  13<\/p>\n
it is observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
          “10. Explanation 2 to the said decision envisages<\/p>\n
          that  it  may  amount to defamation  to  make  an<\/p>\n
          imputation concerning a company or an association<\/p>\n
          or collection of persons as such.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          11. …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          12. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          13.  As regards the allegations made against  the<\/p>\n
          appellant in the complaint filed in the Court  of<\/p>\n
          Judicial  Magistrate, Ist Class, at Nasik,  on  a<\/p>\n
          reading of the complaint we do not think that  we<\/p>\n
          will  be  justified at this stage to  quash  that<\/p>\n
          complaint.  It is not the province of this  Court<\/p>\n
          to appreciate at this stage the evidence or scope<\/p>\n
          of   and   meaning  of  the  statement.   Certain<\/p>\n
          allegations  came  to be made but  whether  these<\/p>\n
          allegations  do  constitute  defamation  of   the<\/p>\n
          Marwari community as a business class and whether<\/p>\n
          the  appellant  had  intention  to  cite  as   an<\/p>\n
          instance  of general feeling among the  community<\/p>\n
          and   whether  the  context  in  which  the  said<\/p>\n
          statement  came to be made, as is  sought  to  be<\/p>\n
          argued  by  the  learned Senior Counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
          appellant,  are all matters to be  considered  by<\/p>\n
          the  learned Magistrate at a later stage. At this<\/p>\n
          stage,   we  cannot  embark  upon  weighing   the<\/p>\n
          evidence  and  come  to any conclusion  to  hold,<\/p>\n
          whether  or  not  the  allegations  made  in  the<\/p>\n
          complaint constitute an offence punishable  under<\/p>\n
          Section  500<\/a>.  It is the settled  legal  position<\/p>\n
          that a court has to read the complaint as a whole<\/p>\n
          and   find   out  whether  allegations  disclosed<\/p>\n
          constitute  an offence under Section 499<\/a>  triable<\/p>\n
          by  the  Magistrate. The Magistrate  prima  facie<\/p>\n
          came to the conclusion that the allegations might<\/p>\n
          come  within the definition of ‘defamation’ under<\/p>\n
          Section 499<\/a> IPC and could be taken cognizance of.<\/p>\n
          But  these are the facts to be established at the<\/p>\n
          trial.  The  case  set up by  the  appellant  are<\/p>\n
          either  defences open to be taken or other  steps<\/p>\n
          of  framing  a  charge at the trial  at  whatever<\/p>\n
          stage known to law. Prima facie we think that  at<\/p>\n
          this  stage it is not a case warranting  quashing<\/p>\n
          of  the  complaint filed in the Court of Judicial<\/p>\n
          Magistrate,  Ist Class at Nasik. To that  extent,<\/p>\n
          the High Court was right in refusing to quash the<\/p>\n
          complaint under Section 500<\/a> IPC.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
      (ii)  (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 30 (John Thomas  v.  Dr.<\/p>\n
K.Jagadeesan<\/a>) wherein in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 it is  observed<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “11.  ….  It is not disputed that the complainant<\/p>\n
         is  the Director of K.J. Hospital. Explanation 2 in<\/p>\n
         Section 499<\/a> IPC reads thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            “Explanation   2  .  –  It  may   amount   to<\/p>\n
            defamation to make an imputation concerning a<\/p>\n
            company  or  an association or collection  of<\/p>\n
            persons as such.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
         12  . In view of the said Explanation, it cannot be<\/p>\n
         disputed  that a publication containing  defamatory<\/p>\n
         imputations as against a company would escape  from<\/p>\n
         the  purview of the offence of defamation.  If  the<\/p>\n
         defamation  pertains to an association  of  persons<\/p>\n
         or  a body corporate, who could be the complainant?<\/p>\n
         This  can  be answered by reference to Section  199<\/a><\/p>\n
         of  the Code. The first sub-section of that section<\/p>\n
         alone is relevant in this context. It reads thus:<\/p>\n
           “199.  Prosecution for defamation  .-  (1)  No<\/p>\n
           court  shall  take cognizance  of  an  offence<\/p>\n
           under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> (45<\/p>\n
           of  1860) except upon a complaint made by some<\/p>\n
           person aggrieved by the offence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
         13.  The  collocation of the words “by some persons<\/p>\n
         aggrieved”    definitely   indicates    that    the<\/p>\n
         complainant  need not necessarily  be  the  defamed<\/p>\n
         person  himself. Whether the complainant has reason<\/p>\n
         to  feel  hurt on account of the publication  is  a<\/p>\n
         matter  to  be  determined by the  court  depending<\/p>\n
         upon  the  facts  of each case.  If  a  company  is<\/p>\n
         described   as   engaging   itself   in   nefarious<\/p>\n
         activities  its  impact  would  certainly  fall  on<\/p>\n
         every  Director  of the company and  hence  he  can<\/p>\n
         legitimately feel the pinch of it. Similarly, if  a<\/p>\n
         firm  is described in a publication as carrying  on<\/p>\n
         offensive trade, every working partner of the  firm<\/p>\n
         can  reasonably  be expected to feel  aggrieved  by<\/p>\n
         it.  If K.J. Hospital is a private limited company,<\/p>\n
         it  is  too far-fetched to rule out any one of  its<\/p>\n
         Directors,   feeling  aggrieved   on   account   of<\/p>\n
         pejoratives  hurled  at  the  Company.  Hence   the<\/p>\n
         appellant  cannot  justifiably  contend  that   the<\/p>\n
         Director  of  K.J. Hospital would not  fall  within<\/p>\n
         the  wide  purview  of “some person  aggrieved”  as<\/p>\n
         envisaged in Section 199<\/a>( 1) of the Code<\/a>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      (iii)  AIR  1972  Supreme Court 2609  (referred  to  supra)<\/p>\n
wherein in paragraph 14 it is observed as follows:<\/p>\n
         “14.  …. But Explanation (2) to the section lays<\/p>\n
         down the rule that it may amount to defamation  to<\/p>\n
         make  an  imputation concerning a  company  or  an<\/p>\n
         association or collection of persons  as  such.  A<\/p>\n
         defamatory  imputation  against  a  collection  of<\/p>\n
         persons  thus  falls  within  the  definition   of<\/p>\n
         defamation.  The  language of the  Explanation  is<\/p>\n
         wide,  and  therefore, besides  a  company  or  an<\/p>\n
         association,  any collection of persons  would  be<\/p>\n
         covered  by  it. But such a collection of  persons<\/p>\n
         must  be  an  identifiable  body  so  that  it  is<\/p>\n
         possible to say with definiteness that a group  of<\/p>\n
         particular persons, as distinguished from the rest<\/p>\n
         of  the  community, was defamed. Therefore,  in  a<\/p>\n
         case  where  Explanation (2) is resorted  to,  the<\/p>\n
         identity of the company or the association or  the<\/p>\n
         collection of persons must be established so as to<\/p>\n
         be   relatable   to   the  defamatory   words   or<\/p>\n
         imputations.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      (iv)  1984  L.W. (Crl.) 104 (K.R.Karalan v.  M\/s.  Southern<\/p>\n
Roadways  Ltd., wherein in paragraphs 3 and 5 it is  observed  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “3.  Alleging that the materials contained in  the<\/p>\n
         posters  were  perse  defamatory  and  harmed  the<\/p>\n
         reputation  of  the complainant,  Thiru  Chandran,<\/p>\n
         Additional  Executive officer of  the  complainant<\/p>\n
         Company, field the two complaints in question.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         4. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         5.  ….  Therefore, it follows that everyone  who<\/p>\n
         belongs  to  the management of the  group  company<\/p>\n
         can  be  termed an aggrieved person.  The company,<\/p>\n
         though  a  juridical  entity,  does  not  have   a<\/p>\n
         physical  or bodily existence in flesh  and  blood<\/p>\n
         an,  such,  only  the Directors or the  Managerial<\/p>\n
         staff  or  representatives  of  the  company   can<\/p>\n
         institute  action on behalf of  the  company.   In<\/p>\n
         this case, the clear averment in the complaint  is<\/p>\n
         that    Thiru   Chandran,   Additional   Executive<\/p>\n
         Officer,  who  has  filed the complaint  has  been<\/p>\n
         duly  authorised by the Management of the  company<\/p>\n
         to  take appropriate legal action in regard to the<\/p>\n
         subject  matter  of the complaints  and  connected<\/p>\n
         legal  matters.   In the light of  these  factors,<\/p>\n
         there  is  absolutely no scope for the  petitioner<\/p>\n
         to  contend  that  the complaints  have  not  been<\/p>\n
         preferred    by    an   aggrieved    person    and<\/p>\n
         consequently,  the complaints have been  taken  on<\/p>\n
         file  in violation of the provisions of S.199  (1)<\/p>\n
         Crl.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      8.  I  have carefully considered the above said submissions<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the materials<\/p>\n
available on record and the decisions relied upon by the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel on either side.\n<\/p>\n
\n
     9. A reading of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1935 Rangoon<\/p>\n
108  (referred to supra) shows that the alleged libel must attack<\/p>\n
the  corporation  in its method of conducting its  affairs,  must<\/p>\n
accuse it of fraud or mismanagement, or must attack its financial<\/p>\n
position and it cannot bring a prosecution for words which merely<\/p>\n
affect its honour or dignity.  The decision reported in  AIR 1985<\/p>\n
Bombay  229  (referred to supra) arose out of a suit filed  by  a<\/p>\n
company seeking a decree for injunction alleging  infringement of<\/p>\n
copy-right.   While  considering  the  issues  that   arose   for<\/p>\n
consideration in that suit it is observed that if the imputations<\/p>\n
is  of such nature as to not only defame the individual, but also<\/p>\n
injure  the trading character of the commercial body of  persons,<\/p>\n
then both the individual as well as the commercial body will have<\/p>\n
a  cause of action to sue for defamation.  This decision  in  the<\/p>\n
considered  view of this Court is not of any help to  decide  the<\/p>\n
issue  that  arises for consideration in the above petition.   In<\/p>\n
the  decision  reported in AIR 1925 Calcutta  1121  (referred  to<\/p>\n
supra)  the  decision  reported in (1893)  1  Q.B.  94  has  been<\/p>\n
referred to, wherein it has been laid down that a corporation may<\/p>\n
sue  for  libel  affecting property, but not  for  one  affecting<\/p>\n
personal  reputation.  The said decision is sought to  be  relied<\/p>\n
upon  by  the  learned counsel for the petitioner, which  in  the<\/p>\n
considered view of this Court, is not applicable to the facts  of<\/p>\n
this  case.   In  the  decision reported in  AIR  1969  Punjab  &<\/p>\n
Hariyana 150 (referred to supra) it has been held that a firm  is<\/p>\n
merely a compendious artificial name adopted by its partners  and<\/p>\n
is  not itself a legal entity.  By holding so the Division  Bench<\/p>\n
has  held that libel or slander of a partnership firm may  indeed<\/p>\n
amount to defamation of its partners, but then it is the partners<\/p>\n
who  may  in  such  an eventuality sue and not  the  firm.   This<\/p>\n
decision also is of no help in deciding the issue that arises for<\/p>\n
consideration  in the above petition.  The decision  reported  in<\/p>\n
(2006)  2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 105 (referred to supra) is not applicable<\/p>\n
to  the  facts of this case as the facts of that case are totally<\/p>\n
different.   In  the decision reported in AIR 1972 Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
2609   (referred  to  supra)  after  considering  the  provisions<\/p>\n
contained  in Section 198<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code  it  has<\/p>\n
been  held  that the said Section lays down an exception  to  the<\/p>\n
general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether  he<\/p>\n
is  an  aggrieved  person  or  not, and  modifies  that  rule  by<\/p>\n
permitting only an aggrieved person to move a Magistrate in cases<\/p>\n
of defamation and in the said decision Explanation (2) to Section<\/p>\n
499<\/a>  of the Indian Penal Code has also been considered and  after<\/p>\n
such  consideration  it  has  been held  that  in  a  case  where<\/p>\n
Explanation  (2) is resorted to, the identity of the  company  or<\/p>\n
the  association or the collection of persons must be established<\/p>\n
so  as  to  be  relatable to the defamatory words or imputations.<\/p>\n
Therefore,  a case for defamation in respect of imputations  made<\/p>\n
against  a  company can be filed but it has not been  decided  in<\/p>\n
that  case  as to who can file the complaint namely  whether  the<\/p>\n
company  can file the complaint or its Directors alone  can  file<\/p>\n
the  complaint.  Therefore in the considered view of  this  Court<\/p>\n
the  said decision is not helpful to decide the issue that arises<\/p>\n
for  consideration  in  the  above  petition.   In  the  decision<\/p>\n
reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 263 (referred to  supra)<\/p>\n
also  the  question  as  to  whether a  company  can  maintain  a<\/p>\n
complaint  by  itself in respect of a defamatory  statement  made<\/p>\n
against it has not been decided and as such the said decision  is<\/p>\n
also   not   helpful  to  decide  the  issue  that   arises   for<\/p>\n
consideration in the above petition.  In the decision reported in<\/p>\n
(2001)  6  Supreme Court Cases 30 (referred to supra)  the  issue<\/p>\n
that  came up for consideration before the Honourable Apex  Court<\/p>\n
is whether the Director of the company which has been defamed can<\/p>\n
maintain a complaint, while considering that issue the Apex Court<\/p>\n
has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
          “If  a company is described as engaging itself  in<\/p>\n
          nefarious  activities its impact  would  certainly<\/p>\n
          fall  on  every Director of the company and  hence<\/p>\n
          he   can  legitimately  feel  the  pinch  of   it.<\/p>\n
          Similarly,   if   a  firm  is   described   in   a<\/p>\n
          publication as carrying on offensive trade,  every<\/p>\n
          working  partner  of the firm  can  reasonably  be<\/p>\n
          expected  to  feel  aggrieved  by  it.   If   K.J.<\/p>\n
          Hospital is a private limited company, it  is  too<\/p>\n
          far-fetched to rule out any one of its  Directors,<\/p>\n
          feeling   aggrieved  on  account  of   pejoratives<\/p>\n
          hurled  at the Company. Hence the appellant cannot<\/p>\n
          justifiably  contend  that the  Director  of  K.J.<\/p>\n
          Hospital  would not fall within the  wide  purview<\/p>\n
          of   “some  person  aggrieved”  as  envisaged   in<\/p>\n
          Section 199<\/a> (1) of the Code<\/a>.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Here again though it has been held that the Director of a company<\/p>\n
can  maintain  a  complaint in respect of a defamatory  statement<\/p>\n
made  against a company the issue as to whether the  company  can<\/p>\n
maintain  a  complaint for defamation in respect of a  defamatory<\/p>\n
statement  made  against  the  company  has  not  come   up   for<\/p>\n
consideration before the Apex Court.  Therefore, this decision is<\/p>\n
also   not   helpful  to  decide  the  issue  that   arises   for<\/p>\n
consideration in the above petition.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      10. The decision reported in 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 104 (referred<\/p>\n
to  supra), as rightly contended by the learned counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioners, squarely applies to the facts of this case.  In that<\/p>\n
case,  alleging that the materials contained in the posters  were<\/p>\n
perse  defamatory  and harmed the reputation of the  complainant,<\/p>\n
Thiru  Chandran, Additional Executive officer of the  complainant<\/p>\n
Company,  field  the complaints stating that  he  has  been  duly<\/p>\n
authorised to file the complaint.  A contention was put forth  by<\/p>\n
the  accused that the complaint filed by the company through  its<\/p>\n
Authorised Representative is not maintainable.  While considering<\/p>\n
the same, a Learned Judge of this Court has observed as under:<\/p>\n
                “The  company,  though a  juridical  entity,<\/p>\n
          does  not  have a physical or bodily existence  in<\/p>\n
          flesh  and  blood an, such, only the Directors  or<\/p>\n
          the  Managerial  staff or representatives  of  the<\/p>\n
          company  can  institute action on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
          company.  In this case, the clear averment in  the<\/p>\n
          complaint   is  that  Thiru  Chandran,  Additional<\/p>\n
          Executive  Officer,  who has filed  the  complaint<\/p>\n
          has  been duly authorised by the Management of the<\/p>\n
          company  to  take  appropriate  legal  action   in<\/p>\n
          regard  to  the  subject matter of the  complaints<\/p>\n
          and  connected  legal matters.  In  the  light  of<\/p>\n
          these  factors, there is absolutely no  scope  for<\/p>\n
          the  petitioner  to  contend that  the  complaints<\/p>\n
          have  not  been  preferred by an aggrieved  person<\/p>\n
          and  consequently, the complaints have been  taken<\/p>\n
          on  file  in violation of the provisions of  S.199<\/p>\n
          (1) Crl.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      11.  The  facts of the above said case are similar  to  the<\/p>\n
facts of the case on hand.  Therefore, the ratio laid down in the<\/p>\n
said  decision squarely applies to the case on hand, if  that  be<\/p>\n
so,  the  contention of the learned counsel for  the  petitioners<\/p>\n
that  the company cannot maintain a complaint has to be rejected.<\/p>\n
Since  the  above said decision has been rendered  by  a  Learned<\/p>\n
Judge  of this Court, I am bound to follow the same, whereas  the<\/p>\n
decisions reported in A.I.R. 1935 Rangoon 108 (referred to supra)<\/p>\n
and AIR 1925 Calcutta 1121 (referred to supra) are having only  a<\/p>\n
persuasive  value and it cannot be considered that it is  binding<\/p>\n
on me.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       12.  Therefore  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  in  the<\/p>\n
considered  view  of  this  Court, the  complaint  filed  by  the<\/p>\n
respondent is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       13.  The  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners  that  the company may maintain a prosecution  or  an<\/p>\n
action  for a libel affecting its property, but not for  a  libel<\/p>\n
merely  affecting  personal  reputation  as  a  company  has   no<\/p>\n
reputation  apart from its property or trade is  concerned,  this<\/p>\n
Court  is  of  the  considered view that  since  there  are  some<\/p>\n
allegations  in  paragraph  8 of the  complaint  it  is  not  the<\/p>\n
province  of this Court to appreciate at this stage the  evidence<\/p>\n
or  scope  of and meaning of the statement.  At this  stage  this<\/p>\n
Court  cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come  to  the<\/p>\n
conclusion  to hold, whether or not the allegations made  in  the<\/p>\n
complaint constitute an offence punishable under Section  500<\/a>  of<\/p>\n
the  Indian  Penal Code.  As laid down in (1996) 6 Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
Cases   263  (referred  to  supra)   it  is  the  settled   legal<\/p>\n
proposition that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and<\/p>\n
find  out whether the allegations disclosed constitute an offence<\/p>\n
under  Section  499<\/a>  of the Indian Penal Code  triable  with  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate  and  the Magistrate, prima facie,  has  come  to  the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the allegations might come within the meaning  of<\/p>\n
‘defamation’ under Section 499<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code  and  had<\/p>\n
taken cognizance of, but these are the facts to be established at<\/p>\n
the  trial.   The  case  set  up by the  petitioners  are  either<\/p>\n
defences  open to be taken or other steps of framing a charge  at<\/p>\n
the  trial at whatever stage known to law. Prima facie this Court<\/p>\n
is  of the considered view that, at this stage, it is not a  case<\/p>\n
warranting  quashing  of  the complaint filed  before  the  Court<\/p>\n
below.   The contention of the petitioners, that in the  impugned<\/p>\n
publication there is no reference to the complainant,  but  there<\/p>\n
is  a  reference only to ‘Sun DTH’ is concerned, it  is  for  the<\/p>\n
Court  below  to consider as to what meaning to be given  to  the<\/p>\n
words “rd; FGkk;”.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      14.  Therefore  this Court is not inclined to  express  any<\/p>\n
opinion  on  this  aspect of the matter, except  to  the  limited<\/p>\n
extent  of  saying that the Court below had not acted wrongly  in<\/p>\n
coming  to  the prima facie conclusion that the contents  of  the<\/p>\n
impugned        publication        appeared       to      contain <\/p>\n
defamatory    material   and   therefore    there   was  need  to <\/p>\n
take    the    complaint   on   file   and   issue   process   to<\/p>\n
the  accused.  I am not going any further into this aspect of the<\/p>\n
matter because the door must be open for the petitioners to raise<\/p>\n
their contentions before the trial court that the contents of the<\/p>\n
impugned  publication is not perse defamatory and therefore  they<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for an offence of defamation.<\/p>\n
      15. For the above said reasons, the above criminal original<\/p>\n
petition  fails  and  the  same  is dismissed.  Consequently  the<\/p>\n
connected MPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
srk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Metropolitan Magistrate Court XVII
\nChennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.11.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM Criminal Original Petition No.33138 of 2007 AND Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 1. Dr. R.Krishnamurthy Editor and Partner Dinamalar Tamil Daily […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":5833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007"},"wordCount":5833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007","name":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T23:17:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-r-krishnamurthy-vs-sun-tv-network-limited-on-19-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. R.Krishnamurthy vs Sun Tv Network Limited on 19 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255238","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}