ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the petitioner's YouTube Video posted on 03.01.2020, the respondent herein filed the impugned private complaint under Section 500 of IPC. The jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summon to the petitioner. To quash the same, this criminal original petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions projected in the memorandum of grounds and submitted that the impugned complaint is not maintainable.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned complaint is very much maintainable. She took me through the contents of the impugned complaint and pointed out that the words uttered by the petitioner are on the face of it defamatory. The petitioner has without any justification made defamatory statements against Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. The complainant is an office bearer of the party. He was therefore entitled to file the impugned complaint. A reading of the complaint would show that all the essential ingredients of the offence of the defamation are present in this case. The complainant has produced a witness and also enclosed the offending video. Only after due application of judicial mind, cognizance was taken. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499 of IPC. The petitioner's conduct is malicious and suffers from lack of good faith. The learned counsel heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 (Subramanian Swamy v. UOI). It was held therein that reputation is a valuable right entitled to protection. In any event, the defence put forth by the petitioner will have to be necessarily established only in a regular trial. She also called upon this Court to bear in mind the broad sweep of Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. She pressed for dismissal of this petition.

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The Citizenship Act was a amended in the year 2019 to give relief to the religious minorities persecuted in some of the neighboring countries. That led to protests all over India. In Tamil Nadu also, agitations were held. An Advocate, by name, Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai resorted to a novel form of protest. The “Kolam” drawn by her and a few others in Besant Nagar in Chennai contained slogans opposing CAA. The Chennai police detained them. This drew criticism from Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam which was the then principal opposition party.

6. Following a meeting with the protestors, the DMK called upon its cadre to emulate Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai by drawing such Kolams in front of their homes. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu police in a press conference alleged that Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai was associated with a Pakistan based NGO “Bytes for all”. In this background, the petitioner came out with the video in question.

7. The petitioner targeted Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. If DMK or Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai had lodged a complaint under Section 500 of IPC, the locus standi could not have been questioned. Admittedly, the complaint was filed neither by DMK nor by Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai. The respondent has filed it in his individual capacity and not on behalf of DMK. The respondent herein claims to be a member and also an office bearer of DMK. There is nothing on record to show that DMK had authorised the complainant to file the impugned complaint.

8. Section 499 of IPC penalizes harming the reputation of any person. Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC states that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. The expression “as such” occurring in Explanation 2 is highly significant. It was considered in the decision reported in AIR 1938 Sind 88 (Ahmedali Adamali v. Emperor). It was held therein that if a collection or company