Chennai: The Madras high court has quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against Super Star Rajinikanth, pending before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town.
Justice N.Anand Venkatesh allowed the petition filed by Shivaji Rao Gaikwad alias Rajinikanth, which sought to call for the records pertaining to taking of cognizance of the private complaint lodged by film financier S. Mukunchand Bothra on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate and quash the same.
The judge said in the present case, Rajinikanth had made the averments against Bothra, since he wanted to project the previous conduct/character of Bothra which he thought was essential and relevant for the purpose of deciding the petition filed for rejection of the suit filed by Bothra. A reading of the entire affidavit shows that the petitioner wanted to establish the fact that the entire suit was intended to malign and defame the petitioner, who had no dealings whatsoever with Bothra at any time. In a money dealing with Bothra, one Kasthuri Raja seems to have used the name of the petitioner for borrowing money from Bothra and that was the only cause of action for filing the suit by Bothra against the petitioner (Rajinikanth), the judge added.
Extracting the findings of the court while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint filed by Bothra while dismissing the suit, the judge said the findings makes it very clear that the averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the rejection of the plaint, had a major bearing while deciding the petition. It was also clear that the averment was not unconnected or unwarranted for deciding the issue involved in the petition.
This court has gone to the extent of finding that the entire suit was a speculative one, the judge added.
The judge said, “This court is of the considered view that the averment made in the affidavit by the petitioner is not per se defamatory, and the same was made as a necessary averment in order to project the conduct/character of the respondent (Bothra). The same
has been sanctified by the final orders passed by this court. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal complaint against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of process of court, and the same requires the interference of this court”.
