Legal Battle Over Defamation: Understanding Criminal Complaints and High Court Rulings

The case of B.R.K. Aathithan vs. Sun Group & Anr. presents a significant legal battle regarding criminal defamation and the right to file successive complaints. The Supreme Court examined whether the second complaint, based on the same facts as the first, was maintainable.

The appellant, B.R.K. Aathithan, had initially filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that Sun Group defamed him by broadcasting news about an FIR registered against him. However, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed his complaint, holding that the matter fell under the fourth exception of Section 499 IPC.

Background of the Case

In 2013, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 468 IPC in Tamil Nadu, alleging he had taken money to facilitate admissions in law colleges. Sun Group, a media entity, reported on his arrest, which Aathithan claimed was defamatory.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/money-laundering-case-supreme-courts-ruling-on-bribe-givers-involvement-in-proceeds-of-crime/

The first complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate in 2015, stating:

“On perusal of the available material, the content of the Petitioner falls in the Fourth exception of U/s 499 IPC. Hence, there is no prima facie case made out against the Respondents for the alleged offences.”

The appellant withdrew his criminal revision petition before the High Court but later filed a second complaint in 2017, which was quashed by the Madras High Court.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Argument

The appellant contended that his second complaint was maintainable as the first complaint was dismissed summarily without due consideration of evidence. He relied on Supreme Court precedents, arguing that a second complaint is permissible in exceptional circumstances.

Respondent’s Argument

The respondents countered that the second complaint was a mere replica of the first and hence barred. They emphasized the High Court’s ruling that a complainant cannot maintain another complaint on identical facts after withdrawing a revision petition.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-conviction-in-jharkhand-rape-and-murder-case/

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating:

“Once a learned Magistrate applied his mind on the materials available on record and came to a conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the accused, another Judicial Magistrate cannot hold that the earlier order passed by his predecessor is not valid.”

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s withdrawal of his revision petition before the High Court did not grant him liberty to file a fresh complaint. The dismissal of the first complaint was on merits, and thus, a second complaint was not maintainable.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that successive complaints based on identical facts are not permissible unless new material facts emerge. The Court’s decision ensures legal finality and prevents abuse of judicial process.

Petitioner Name: B.R.K. Aathithan.
Respondent Name: Sun Group & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 28-11-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: b.r.k.-aathithan-vs-sun-group-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-11-2022.pdf