IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'person' as employed in defamation laws includes entities such as registered political parties, and the reputation of political parties and their candidates should be protected in a democratic society.

ORDER :

Petitioner is a registered & recognized national political party. It is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.28124/2022 for the offence of defamation punishable u/s.500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said proceedings are pending on the file of learned 42nd ACMM Court, Bangalore (ie., Special Court for the trial of cases of MPs/MLAs). The petitioner along with another happen to be accused therein.

II. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:

(1) The respondent herein had filed a private complaint in PCR No.41/2019 dated 22.05.2019 alleging that the accused had tweeted certain matter that are grossly defamatory of him. The said tweets are as under:

“a) “Congress Exposed – Youth Cong Nation Secretary Ibrahim Khaleelulla has been arrested after being caught printing fake voters ID cards. Bengaluru central candidate @ Arshad Rizwan is behind this racket”

b) “Youth Congress National Secretary Ibrahim Khaleelulla was operating from prabhat complex, 3rd floor room no.507. They were caught red handed by BJP corporate and karyakarthas. It’s speculated @INC India is printing fake voter cards in other parts of the country too.”

c) “Congress party should be disqualified from contesting elections. They have challenged the very existence of democratic values in the country. Will @ RahulGandhi come out in open and explain the neus between his party and the anti constitutional activities of his party members.”

d) “Election Commission should ban @ArshadRizwan from contesting elections until the investigation is completed. The congress today stays exposed before the country. They have waged war on the democracy of this nation @RahulGandhi, do you any shame left? Speak out!!”

(2) Learned Judge of the court below on perusal of the complaint took cognizance of the offence by the impugned order dated 02.11.2019 and further, having recorded the Sworn Statement of the complainant on 16.12.2019 & 09.01.2020, directed vide order dated 04.01.2020 registration of the ‘criminal case against accused No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable u/s.499 r/w Sec.500 of Indian Penal Code’ (sic). He also directed issue of summons to them. Accused has been admitted to bail vide order dated 10.03.2020 and the cash security of Rs.25,000/-was obtained as a condition for the enlargement on bail. Petitioner seeks quashment of the said proceedings.

III. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

The petitioner-political party is not a ‘person’, the same being only a ‘society’ or ‘association of persons’; such entities do not fit into the word ‘whoever’ employed in both the sections 499 & 500 of IPC and therefore, the proceedings of the kind are not maintainable. Secondly, a bare perusal of the complaint does not reflect the commission of any offence much less the one in question; Even otherwise, the complaint does not generate confidence in the mind of court; allowing the said proceedings to continue amounts to abuse of process of the court. That being the position, the same is liable to be quashed in terms of law declared by the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA vs. BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604.

IV. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

The word ‘person’ employed in sections 499 & 500 is inclusively defined u/s 11 of IPC; even otherwise, section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 expansively defines this word. The contents of the complaint taken at their face value reflect commission of the offence of defamation and therefore, learned Judge of the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the same. At that stage, it is not in the province of the court to have a mini-trial; all contentions are open to the petitioner in the pending proceedings in the court below. There is absolutely no case of abuse of process of court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

V. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines interf