The Madras High Court on Thursday stayed all further proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by film financier S. Mukunchand Bothra against actor Rajinikanth, before the VII metropolitan magistrate court in George Town here, for having accused the latter of attempting to extort money from him.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar granted the interim stay on an application preferred by the actor to quash the case.
Mr. Rajinikanth had also sought an interim stay of the proceedings pending before the lower court until the disposal of the quash petition.
The petitioner stated that he was an actor in high demand in the film industry because he happened to be a crowd puller and most of his movies were blockbusters. A huge fan base across the country had earned him high public reputation, he said before explaining the facts of the case. He said the financier’s claim was that he had lent ₹40 lakh to film director Kasthuri Raja, who happened to be the father-in-law of Rajinikanth’s elder daughter, on January 2, 2012, and another ₹25 lakh on July 13, 2012, on the basis of a written assurance by the borrower that the actor would settle the debt even if he failed to do so.
Subsequently, a cheque issued by Mr. Raja reportedly got dishonoured. Though the financier lodged a cheque bounce complaint, it got dismissed by a lower court. Subsequently, in 2015, he filed a civil suit with a plea to either take action against the director for misusing the actor’s name or declare that there was a collusion between them.
Then, Mr. Rajinikanth filed an application to reject the suit, and in that application, he had accused the financier of attempting to extort money from him. Taking objection to such a charge levelled against him, the financier now wanted the actor to be punished for criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Criminal colour
Challenging the defamation proceedings, the actor claimed that pleadings made in a civil proceedings could not be termed to be a defamatory statement unless the court concerned had struck off those pleadings.
He also contended that the financier was attempting to give a criminal colour to the civil proceedings.
