1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and to quash the same and also seeking a direction to dispense with the personal appearance of the second petitioner/second accused herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The petitioners herein are the son and the father. The second respondent/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners which culminated into filing of charges under Sections 43, 65, 67 of Information Technology Act r/w Sections 500 & 509 of IPC, insofar as the first accused/first petitioner is concerned and for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC insofar as the second accused/second petitioner is concerned.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is running a business in the name of 'Phoenix Apparels'. The first petitioner had offered to become a partner in the said Phoenix Apparels, owing to which, there arose a dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent herein. Pursuant to the dispute, the first petitioner herein had posted a message on the Internet which reads as follows:

“Hi Everybody. Phoenix Apparels, Tiruppur, India is a fraud company. please do not trust those people they will get money from buyers and they will not deliver goods. Here is the website of the company. Proprietor of the company is Priya she is a, No-1 culprit will cheat every body this is not a spam people try to understand the seriousness and act fast. All the sister concerns mentioned in their website are of their relatives they don't own any factory. They will never deliver goods on time people please be careful it's a kind advice.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid message, it is alleged that the petitioners had spoken ill of the second respondent and had also caused threat to her over phone. Hence, charges have been framed against the petitioners.

5. Mr.S.Sathya Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the offences under Sections 509 & 506(i) of IPC has not been made out as against the petitioners respectively. According to him, the offence under Section 509 IPC has been falsely registered against the first petitioner, only for the purpose of making out a cognizable offence. As such, on a plain reading of the complaint given, at the most, the first petitioner can be tried for offence of defamation, for which purpose, the learned counsel also relied upon Section 199 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that only a private complaint may lie against the first petitioner for defamation.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, relying upon the submission made by the witnesses, submitted that both the offences under Section 509 & 506(i) of IPC have been made out against the petitioners herein respectively and therefore, no prior order of the learned Magistrate was required, since Section 509 of IPC is a cognizable offence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, pursuant to the posting of the statement in the website, there was an exchange of words between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, during which point of time, the words and threats were made by the second petitioner, thereby attracting Section 506(i) of IPC and since the posting of the message in the website amounts to insulting the modesty of a woman, Section 509 of IPC has been made out as against the first petitioner.

7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

8. While the first accused has been charged for offences under Sections 43, 65 & 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 r/w. Sections 500 and 509 IPC, the second accused has been charged for offence under Section 506(i) IPC alone. Among the aforesaid offences, Sec