Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash criminal proceedings initiated against actor and politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists, N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that S.Ve Shekher has given an unconditional apology, said that if such an easy route is adopted, anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently apologise for his act and get away from the action taken against him. Further, it held that offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(c) and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 are made out against S.Ve Shekher .
In this case it was alleged that S.Ve Shekher published/circulated an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment in his Facebook account in 2018. Thereby, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(c) and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
S.Ve Shekher submitted that he was not aware of the contents of the message that was sent to him by the author of the message, and he had merely forwarded the same from his Facebook account, and immediately after coming to know of the derogatory remarks contained in the message, he removed the contents within a couple of hours on the same day and thereafter, he tendered an unconditional apology to then woman journalist concerned and also to the Press and Media in Tamil Nadu at large. Further, he had also given an interview to a television channel in Tamil Nadu expressing his unconditional apology and making it clear that he had inadvertently forwarded the message without reading its contents. He also reiterated that he has highest respect for the Press and for women journalists and that he never intended to make any such derogatory remark against the Press.
The Court said that it must be kept in mind while deciding the matter that S.Ve Shekher is an educated person and is a well-known figure in the State. He also served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the years 2006-2011. He has a fan following and whatever is done or said by him has an impact.
Afte perusing the message, the Court said that it showcases women journalists in a poor light. The Court was very hesitant to even translate the message as it is despicable, and the contents are highly derogatory against the Press in Tamil Nadu.
The Court said that what is exchanged as a message on social media can have a very big influence within a short time. Thus, a person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message. Particularly, when the person concerned, by virtue of his position, can really influence the minds of the public.
The Court said that considering the stature of S.Ve Shekher , it is expected by him to be more responsible while giving statements or forwarding messages. As he had admitted that he has nearly 5000 followers for his Facebook account, the messages that are sent/ forwarded by him will multiply, if those followers, in turn keep forwarding those messages to others.
The Court remarked that the stature of a person is directly proportional to what he communicates to society and its consequences. Therefore, information or a message sent by a normal citizen and the same information shared by a person with a stature having followers has a lot of difference, when it comes from a person with stature, its repercussions will be higher. Thus, such a person carries a lot of responsibility in what he says and does considering the impact it will have on society.
As per the Court, S.Ve Shekher falls under the category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution before forwarding the message from his Facebook account. Every user of social media must bear this in mind and must be extremely careful before sending or forwarding a message to others.
After referring to Section 504 IPC that deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, the Court said that the message that was forwarded by S.Ve Shekher , did cause insult to the journalists, more particularly the women journalists and it did provoke to break public peace since, after the message was circulated in the social media, there was a demonstration in front of his house and there was some violence. Hence, the Court held that prima facie, the offence under Section 504 of the IPC is made out.
Further, after perusing Section 505(1)(c) IPC, the Court said that the message that was forwarded by the petitioner did induce commission of offence against public tranquility and there was a hue and cry across the State immediately after the incident. Hence, the offence under Section 505(1)(c) of the IPC is also prima facie made out. Further, it held that the offence under Section 509 of the IPC is prima facie made out because the content of the message virtually outrages the modesty of a woman and exposes her very indecently.
The Court also held that as the message contained indecent and vitriolic attack on a particular woman and other women Press Reporters. Hence, prima facie, the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 is also made out.
As per the Court, an offence has already been committed and now, S.Ve Shekher cannot escape from the offence by merely coming up with an apology statement subsequently. In cases involving a dispute between two individuals, if immediately the offender regrets and tenders his apology for his act, the Court may consider acting upon the same. However, in the instant case, it is not a dispute between two individuals and the act of S.Ve Shekher has virtually painted the entire Press and more particularly the women reporters with vulgar comments and when such a large body is affected due to the act of S.Ve Shekher , he cannot be let away just because he tendered an apology. The Court further remarked that if such an easy route is adopted, anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently apologise for his act and get away from the action taken against him.
Thus, the Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings. If such an easy route is adopted, anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently apologize for his act and get away from the action taken against him.
[S.Ve.Shekher v. Al.Gopalsamy, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 4626, Order dated 14-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate AR.Jeya Rhuthran, Advocate Venkatesh Mahadevan
For Respondents: Advocate S.Rajasekar, Advocate R.Narayanan, Advocate R.Thirumoorthy, Additional Public Prosecutor Babu Muthu Meeran,
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
