'Allegations Against Magistrate Unfounded & Invented': Chennai Sessions Court Dismisses Leena Manimekalai's Transfer Petition In Criminal Defamation Case

While declining a plea made by the poet/ filmmaker Leena Manimekalai for transfer of the criminal defamation case pending against her on the file of Saidapet IXth Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai Sessions Court also observed that the allegations against the court's presiding officer are 'unfounded' and 'invented for the purpose of transfer petition'.It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court recently directed the Saidapet Magistrate Court to complete the trial in the criminal defamation case, filed by Ganesan against Manimekalai over the "MeToo" sexual harassment allegations raised by her against him in a Facebook post in 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months.Before the Sessions, the petitioner/ accused expressed her apprehension that if the trial were to continue before the same Magistrate, then it wouldn't be impartial/ fair and transfer of the case to another competent court is necessary to protect her fundamental rights.Before the Sessions Court, the petitioner contended that the procedure of law under Cr. P.C and principles of natural justice stand vitiated since the Saidapet Magistrate has proceeded as per the whims and fancies of the respondents. The petitioner counsel also underscored that the sequence of events indicate that the Magistrate is biased towards the respondent/ complainant. The petitioner also relied on Gurucharan Dass v. State of Rajasthan (1966) to argue that 'if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done', then such case can be transferred. The party will be entitled to transfer if he/she/they can show that there are circumstances from which he entertains such apprehension and the said apprehension is reasonable in the circumstances alleged.Taking note of the petitioner's argument, the court noted in the order as below:"....It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case, does not survive. The court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension and it squarely applies to the case on hand since the allegations made against the presiding officer are unfounded and invented for the purpose of transfer petition...", stating the same, the Sessions Court concluded that it hasn't found any merits in the contentions raised by Manimekalai and refused to transfer the case to another competent court.Arguments Raised & Court's ObservationsDuring the pendency of the criminal defamation case before the Magistrate, Susi Ganesan filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 104 Cr. P.C to impound Manimekalai's passport and travel documents, alleging that she might flee the country without completing the trial. The petitioner gave the undertaking to appear before the court when required and the petition was closed after recording the same. However, it was also mentioned that the respondent/ complainant will have the liberty to request reopening the same whenever there is a breach of the undertaking given.Later, in November 2020, High Court directed the Magistrate to dispose off the criminal defamation case in nine months.In August 2021, another petition was filed by Susi Ganesan for reopening the 2020 miscellaneous petition that was already closed by the trial court after recording Manimekalai's undertaking. On the complainant's application in November, 2021, the Magistrate allowed reopening the petition. This was vehemently challenged by Manimekalai's counsel.The petitioner contended that the application was allowed 'mechanically on the same day' without affording Manimekalai an opportunity to file the counter. But, the court observed that the Magistrate has specifically mentioned in the order that both sides were heard."...Also, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner /complainant in C.M.P No. 119/ 2020 and thereafter, after hearing both sides, it has been closed with liberty to reopen when there is a breach of undertaking. Therefore, the question of filing counter in C.M.P 119/ 2020 does not arise", the court said while underscoring that there has been no violations of the principles of natural justiceIn September 2021, Manimekalai filed a memo before the trial court itself averring that it cannot review its own order and the order of reopening CMP 119/ 2020 was erroneous. About this angle, the Sessions Court noted that the petitioner herself should have approached a higher forum to challenge the order passed instead of disputing it before the same forum by filing a memo. The court also noted that the reopening of the case upon the satisfaction of the breach of the undertaking given cannot be construed as a review of the order already passed.Another contention raised by the petitioner/ accused was that a non-bailable warrant was issued instead of a bailable warrant to ensure...

'Allegations Against Magistrate Unfounded & Invented': Chennai Sessions Court Dismisses Leena Manimekalai's Transfer Petition In Criminal Defamation Case

Sebin James

Tags