The judgment established the importance of proving mensrea and actus reus in defamation cases, the requirement for authorization from the aggrieved person, and the high threshold for placing restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to private complaint filed by the complainant in C.C.No.1583 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, and quash the same as against the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1583 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 64A and C of the Information and Technology Act 2000, as against the petitioner.

2. The respondent lodged private complaint under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Sections, 499, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. The respondent alleged that the petitioner twitted in her twitter account as against the President of Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi with a view to defame and to cause disrespect to the image of the political leader among the general public. She made twitter in her twitter account as follows:-

“LANGUAGE”

“The scum Thirumavalavan as has know balls to face me directly. I request all Hindus to send him a madisar, not saree”

The above twitter caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the President of the political party. In support of the said complaint, the respondent had examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and his sworn statement was also recorded. On the strength of the statement, the trial Court had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 64A and C of the Information and Technology Act 2000.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an office bearer of Bharathiya Janatha Political party and also holding Tamil Nadu State President of Art and Culture Cell. She is also an actress in film industries for the past several years. The president of the political party made allegation against Hindus and Hindu families and touch the religious sentiments of the Hindus and Hindu women. It was released on 15.11.2019 in You tube. On seeing the said video, the petitioner was very much offended and since the remarks were highly controversial and offended the sentiments of the hindu women and religion. Therefore, the petitioner retorted and resisted for the said allegation through her twitter account. She twitted that all hindus must slipper, if you see him anywhere wandering and she had posted cheppal symbol. Therefore, she had no intention to cause any injury to him or to his reputation or property by making the above statement. Only to retort by protest, she twitted like that and it is not in defamatory the political leader in any manner.

3.1. That apart, this twitter did not constitute any offence under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. In this regard, the petitioner also had lodged complaint before the National Commission for Women, Government of India, New Delhi and it is pending. In fact, the political leader of the political party had sought for apology and thereafter, the petitioner also had sought for apology. Thereafter, the present impugned complaint has been lodged that too not by the political leader and by the respondent who no where connected to the alleged political leader. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance.

3.2. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relays upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (2) Law Weekly Crl. 646 in the case of Dr.Subramanianswamy Vs. State which held that both the elements of mensrea and actus are missing and actus reus is lacking in the instant case to warrant the initiation of the criminal proceedings and mere mensrea is not sufficient to attract the commission of offence. In another case reported in 2010(2) SCC Crl. 1299 in the case of S.Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is not the task of the criminal law to punish individuals merely for