1. That the Petitioners have approached this Court to quash the proceedings that is a private complaint filed by the Respondent herein before the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Uthagamandalam, Nilgris District in Calendar Case No.171 of 2011 for the alleged offence under section 499 and 500 of IPC. At the time of filing of the instant petition, these petitioners were directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by issuing summons to appear before him on 19.12.2011.

2. As per the version of the counsel for the petitioners and the perusal of the complaint in C.C.No.171 of 2011 on the file of the aforesaid Court, it is ascertained that all these petitioners are actors in Tamil cinema. The genesis of the instant case could be traced that on 03.10.2009, a cine actress was arrested under the provisions of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention Act) and same was published almost in all the electronic media in Tamil Nadu. As such, the morning Tamil daily Dinamalar by its publication dated 04.10.2009 published a news item with a comment “Periya Vibachara Nadigaigal” and also published the photographs of six other leading heroines including the photograph of the 1st Petitioner at page No.11 in the Chennai Edition.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the 1st Petitioner and some other actresses brought the said news item to the South Indian Artist Association for legal action against the persons for the defamatory publication. The said Association decided to lodge a complaint and accordingly on 05.10.2009 a complaint was lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Subsequently, the news editor of Dinamalar news paper was arrested on 07.09.2010. However, the Defacto-complainant filed the aforesaid complaint stating that under the aforesaid circumstances on 07.10.2000 a meeting was organized by the South Indian Actors Association at Swami Sangaradass Hall, Chennai.

4. The said meeting was organized to condemn the news item published by aforesaid news paper. In the meeting, the petitioners made defamatory imputations as stated in Para No.11 of the complaint. Further the defamatory imputations made by the petitioners were widely telecasted and it reached to several crores of people all over the world. Thereafter, the Petitioner, as he is a freelance journalist was not able to meet his friends as they enquired him about the aforesaid meeting. So, his social reputation is badly affected and in the eyes of his friends his respect was degraded. So, the Defacto complainant filed the complaint before the aforesaid Court.

5. However, the counsel for the Petitioners submits that when similar complaints were filed in C.C.No.232 of 2009 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagangai, C.C.No.380 of 2009 Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli, C.C.No.233 of 2009, Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, C.C.No.485 of 2009 Judicial Magistrate, Palani) and this complaint also. However, as against the cognizance taken in the aforesaid calendar cases, petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.10194 of 2009, 10328 of 2009, 10794 of 2009 and 11742 of 2009. In those applications the further proceedings of the respective calendar cases are stayed. The further contention of the Petitioner’s counsel would be that the complainant has not sated anywhere in his complaint that in what manner he has been defamed but balled and vague allegations alone are available which would not make out or attracted the ingredients of section 499 and 500 of IPC.

6. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate without any satisfaction issued process under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code is bad in law. Further, the competency of the complainant is also questioned as he in no manner affected and hence he has no locus-standi to file the complaint.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that it is very clear that the petitioners have committed the offence as defined under section 499 of IPC. Hence the same is punishable under Section 500 of IP