Proceedings against Nakkheeran stayed by Madras High Court

Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the interim order on a petition from Nakkheeran Gopal seeking to quash the criminal case pending before the magistrate court.
Madras High Court (Photo | D Sampath Kumar, EPS)
Madras High Court (Photo | D Sampath Kumar, EPS)

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed all further proceedings of a trial court against Nakkheeran bi-weekly in connection with the publication of alleged derogatory news against the Tamil Nadu Governor in professor Nirmala Devi case.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the interim order on a petition from Nakkheeran Gopal seeking to quash the criminal case pending before the magistrate court. In his order, the judge said  “The first and the most important issue that is coming up for consideration is whether the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, makes out an offence under IPC Section 124 against the petitioners. This is the first case after independence wherein the court has been called upon to consider whether a publication by itself will have the effect of overawing his Excellency the Governor to prevent him from exercising his lawful powers and duties. In order to satisfy the requirements of the word ‘Overawe’, there must be something more than creation of an apprehension, alarm or even perhaps fear. There is definitely a point for consideration in this case as to whether the material collected by the Investigating Officer by itself satisfy the requirements of IPC Section 124.”

Referring to Supreme Court orders, he said “The Apex Court which dealt with a case under section 353 of IPC said a criminal force or an assault could not be said to have occurred by publishing a post on Facebook, however malicious it may be. The related issue would be if assuming the publication made is construed as malicious and it harms the reputation of his Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, can that by itself satisfy the requirement of the term “Overawe” under Section 124 of IPC.”

On the second issue raised by petitioner’s counsel PT Perumal that the trial court ought not to have taken cognisance of the final report, the judge said “Though Additional Advocate-General submitted that sanction was  taken into consideration by the Court below, this Court is not able to find any prima facie material which shows the application of mind by the court below at the time of taking cognisance with regard to the sanction which is said to have been granted.”The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 8.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com