Madras High Court Reserves Orders On TN Speaker M Appavu's Plea Seeking To Quash Defamation Complaint By ADMK's Babumurugavel

Justice G Jayachandran reserved the orders on Tuesday after hearing Senior Advocate P Wilson for the Speaker and Senior Advocate John Sathyan for Babumurugavel.

Murugavel had argued that while speaking at a book release function, Appavu had defamed the AIADMK party were ready to switch over to the DMK party after the demise of Dr J Jayalalithaa. He thus claimed that Appavu had committed offences under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC and filed a complaint.

While seeking to quash the complaint, Wilson submitted that Appavu's remarks were not directed against the complainant or the party but against some MLAs of the party who were not even named. He thus questioned how Appavu, who was not even aggrieved or named by Appavu could claim legal injury and file a complaint.

Wilson further argued that even if the party was aggrieved by the statements made by Appavu, Murugavel did not have locus to contest the case. He submitted that if the party was aggrieved, either the president of the party or its general secretary were authorised to file a petition. He submitted that though Murugavel claimed that he was an authorised office bearer and could file the petition, there was nothing to prove the same nor there was a resolution by the party authorising him to file the plea.

He further argued that as per Section 199 of the CrPC, the trial court could take cognisance of an offence of defamation only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the present case, he submitted that the Murugavel was not aggrieved by the statements made by Appavu. It was submitted that the trial court was not expected to act as a post box, taking cognisance of any and every complaint presented before it. He submitted that the trial court was expected to apply its mind on whether or not an offence as alleged was made out justifying taking cognisance by the court.

On the other hand, John Sathyan argued that Murugavel had locus to file the complaint as he was the joint secretary of the legal wing of AIADMK. He submitted that Murugavel was the spokesperson of the party and one among the members of the legal advisory committee. He submitted that the statements made by Appavu could demoralise the MLAs of the party and affect the party's reputation. He thus argued that being a member of the party, the complaint made by him was maintainable.

Case Title: M Appavu v RM Babumurugavel

Case No: Crl OP 25334 of 2024