2. 2
2)Petition averments :
Petitioner is Secretary of the Dravidar Viduthalai
Kazhagam, in Chennai District,following and propagating
ideology of Thanthai Periyar, and on 14.01.2020 at
Kalaivanar Aragam, Wallajah Road, Chennai, meeting was
organized by Thuglak weekly magazine group in view of
golden jubilee celebration of Thuglak weekly magazine, and
actor Rajinikanth addressed the gathering and made false
and fraudulent statements insulting Dravidhiyan ideologists
with intention to provoke breach of public peace, by
promoting enimity and hatred among the public of Tamilnadu,
in the name of religion, only to score political mileage
and gather support from particular community, as if in
1971, Thanthai Periyar and Dravidhiyan ideologists
conducted a rally at Salem, taking out the idols of Lord
Sri Ramachandra Moorthy and Seetha naked by garlanding with
slippers, and thereby making the impression as if Periyar
and Dravidhiyan ideologists have insulted the believers of
Rama and Seetha, and further asserted that the incident was
not published in any other magazine, but only Thuglak
published in cover page, and the same had given very bad
name to DMK, and knowing that no such incident has ever
taken place, on the day of rally taken out by Thanthai
Periyar in 1971, and Thanthai Periyar all along worked for
Welfare of backward classes and conducted conference for
abolishing superstition and to promote scientific temper
among the public, and working for women liberation, and
upliftment, would never insult any women by taking out a
rally with nude images, and the relevant portion of the
speech of Thanthai Periyar, is as follow: " We conducted an
3. 3
antisuperstition rally in Salem. They burnt the effigy of
Ravana, so we decided to burn the effigy of Rama in the end
of the rally. We explained the reasons for doing so; we had
put out the information on display on boards and cloths. I
did not make up anything. Whatever is there in the puranam,
we had put out the facts", and the actor with full
knowledge of the above facts, to promote himself and play
cheap politics by throwing false accusations against
Thanthai Periyar and Dravidhiyan ideologists, and to incite
violence and law and order problems, and to cause
misconceptions regarding Periyar among those who believe in
God, and several protests were staged all over Tamilnadu
leading to several arrests, and miscreants vandalised
statue of Thanthai Periyar at Kalaiapettai, Kanchipuram
District, and law and order problems were created in Salem,
leading to lathicharge by the police, and petitioner given
complaint dt: 18.01.2020 to second respondent police to
register FIR against actor Rajinikanth, but not taken any
action and refused to issue CSR receipt, and only made
endorsement on copy of the complaint, and not registered
any case, and the speech of the actor Rajinikanth attracts
offences u/s. 153 A, 504 and 505 IPC, and hence petitioner
approached the first respondent on 20.01.2020 to register
the case, but no action was taken, hence he has filed
Crl.O.P. 1455/2020, before the Hon'ble High Court for
direction, and when the matter came up for hearing, the
petitioner was advised to withdraw the petition, and file
after 15 days as per judgement of the Division Bench of the
Hon'ble High Court, in G. Prabakaran VS Superindentent of
Police Thanjayur and another, reported in CDJ 2018 MHC
4. 4
5100. Hence this petition.
3) One advocate Mr. Arumugam filed a petition to
intervene, and the same has been returned as not
maintainable.
4) The point for consideration is whether the
petitioner is entitled to direction to register the FIR as
prayed for?
5) Point:
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the decision in G. Prabakaran Vs. Superintendent of
Police, Thanjavur and another, wherein it is laid down that
in normal course, the informant after failing to get
information recorded leading to an investigation, has to
invoke the provision u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., after compliance
of sec. 154 (3) Cr.P.C., but on failure of the SHO to
record the information, within 15 days of receipt of
information, the informant can also approach the Hon'ble
High Court, u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., after expiry of the 15 days,
and eschewing sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is only on exceptional
and rarest of rare cases.
6) The petitioner has filed Crl.O.P. 1455/2019 u/s.
482 Cr.P.C., for direction to register the FIR on the
complaint dt: 18.01.2020. The matter has come up for
hearing on 24.01.2020, and 15 days time as directed in G.
Prabakaran Vs. Superintendent of Police Thanjavur and
another, not yet elapsed on 24.01.2020, and hence
petitioner has been permitted to withdraw the petition with
liberty to file fresh petition after compliance of the
order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The petitioner instead
of approaching the Hon'ble High Court again, has approached
5. 5
this court u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., for the reason that this
case does not fall within the category of
exceptional/rarest of rare cases.
7) The petitioner has given complaint to the second
respondent on 18.01.2020 is established by the endorsement
of the Inspector of Police, D1 Triplicane Police Station
(L&O), on the copy of the complaint. The petitioner has
stated that the SHO refused to register FIR, and therefore
the petitioner has sent a copy of the complaint to the
Commissioner of Police on 20.01.2020, and this is evidenced
by the RPAD receipt dt: 20.01.2020. It is clear that no FIR
filed till date, even 15 days after receipt of complaint by
the SHO. Hence this petition u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. is
maintainable before this court.
8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the speech of the actor Mr. Rajinikanth on 14.01.2020
is a "Hate speech" regarding which, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that authors of hate speech have to be
booked under existing penal law, to safeguard the
democracy.
9) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the decision in Shamit Sanyal and another Vs. State of West
Bengal and others, reported in CDJ 2014 Cal HC 1120, to
contend that the status of the person making the speech,
being a Hero in films, and thereafter made his way into
politics, and that he is an idol to many has to be
considered. On hearing the audio CD recording of the speech
of actor Mr. Rajinikanth, made on 14.01.2020, it is seen
that he has stated what he thought was a fact, about a
rally held in Salem in 1971, by Thanthai Periyar, and which
6. 6
according to him was also published in the Thuglak weekly
magazine of that period. There is no simillarity between
the type of speech dealt with in the decision in Shamit
Sanyal and another Vs State of West Bengal and others, and
the speech of the actor Mr. Rajinikanth. The speech in the
cited decision encouraged the followers of the orator to
breach law and commit offences. Whereas the speech of actor
Mr. Rajinikanth, is at best defamatory. The offence u/s.
499 r/w 500 IPC alone appears to be made out. The said
offence is noncognizable, and maintainable as private
complaint. In the circumstance, on the discussion supra,
this court finds that no grounds are made out for
concluding offences u/s. 153 A, 504 and 505 IPC are
attracted, and the petitioner can file private complaint
for defamation, damages, and compensation, if so advised.
In the result, this petition is dismissed, with
liberty to file private complaint u/s. 499 r/w 500 IPC, if
so advised.
//Dictated to the Stenotypist, typed by her and
corrected by me and Pronounced by me on this day the 10th
day of March, 2020//
(Sd/ Roslyn Durai )
II Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai – 08.
// True Copy //
II Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai 08
