Statements made in interviews, though scandalous, do not constitute offences under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC without intent to provoke or create disharmony.

ORDER :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This quash petition has been filed by A1 to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.548 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.

2. The second respondent who is an office bearer of a political party submitted a complaint stating that A1 gave an interview for a YouTube channel run by A2. During that interview, A1 is said to have made scandalous and false statements against the then Tamil Nadu State Finance Minister and his family members with the view to destroy their reputation. That apart, he also made provocative statements against all religions and thereby attempted to create breach of peace and communal harmony among religions. This interview was widely circulated and as a result, it caused disturbance among the party cadres and also the general public and it had the potential of breaking the public peace. Based on this complaint, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.433 of 2021 for offence under Section 504 of IPC as against the petitioner and the person who was running the YouTube channel.

3. On completion of investigation, the police report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, for offence under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. The same has been put to challenge by the petitioner (A1).

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is an office bearer of a political party and the complaint itself has been given only with a political motive. He further submitted that even if the entire speech given by the petitioner in the interview is taken as it is, at the best, it can only be construed as imputations made against the finance minister and his family members and the same will not constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. If the concerned person is aggrieved, he can only institute proceedings for defamation against the petitioner. Hence, it was contended that the criminal proceedings itself is an abuse of process of law and that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgments in Mathew Samuel v. State reported in (2019) 1 LW (Crl.) 21 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Subal Kumar Dey v. State of Tripura

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the interview given by the petitioner had two parts to it. The first part of the interview touched upon the imputations made against the then finance minister and his family members. However, the second part involved a provocative speech touching upon the religions with an intention to create breach of peace and affect the communal harmony. This interview was also widely circulated and thereby caused disturbance not only for the party cadres but also to the general public since the petitioner touched upon religions and which had the propensity to create communal disharmony and breach of peace. Even though the FIR was registered for offence under Section 504 of IPC, on completion of investigation, it was f