The judgment establishes the importance of specific averments in a complaint, compliance with the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C., and the necessity of conducting an inquiry before issuing process.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.656 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Tirupur.)

1. This Petition has been filed by the Accused 2 to 8 seeking to quash the private Complaint filed by the Respondent herein in C.C.No.656 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1, Tirupur for the offence of defamation.

2. Mr.P.T.Perumal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the private Complaint was filed in the year 2014. However, as per diary entries, the Complaint has been numbered in the year 2017. There is no communication as to whether the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the Respondent/Complainant which is a mandatory provision under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners herein, who are arrayed as Accused 1 to 8 in the private Complaint, are residents of Chennai and not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate – I at Tirupur. There is no communication to show that the learned Judicial Magistrate had applied his/her mind and had applied with the requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is seen that the Complaint had been filed by the Respondent/Complainant viz., Dhandapani, who claimed himself that he belongs to an Organization. The Prosecution for defamation has to be necessarily complied with the requirements of Section 199 of Cr.P.C., It can only be filed by a person aggrieved. The entire allegations contained in the publications is not against the Respondent/Complainant.

2.1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 499 of IPC reads as under:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishers any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

2.2. Particularly, he invited the attention of this Court to Explanation IV of Section 499 of IPC which reads as follows:

“Explanation 4. - No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”

2.3. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court regarding the address and the designation of the Petitioners herein, who were arrayed as Accused, in the Complaint. Accused – 1/Petitioner – 1 is the Author of the Article in the Nakkheeran Tamil Bi-Weekly of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications. The Accused – 2/Petitioner – 2 is the Organization viz., M/s. Nakkheeran Publications represented by its Publisher Nakkheeran Gopal. The Accused – 3/Petitioner – 3 is the Editor and Printer of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications. The Accused – 4/Petitioner -4 is the Management Administrator of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications. The Accused- 5/Petitioner – 5 is the Production Manager of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications. The Accused – 6/ Petitioner -6 is the General Manager of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications and the Accused -7/ Petitioner – 7 is the Administrative Manager of M/s. Nakkheeran Publications. All the Petitioners 1 to 7 are the Residents of Royapettah, Chennai, within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court and within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and not the residents of within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate – 1, Tirupur.

2.4. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this