ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner Prema @ Krishnaveni, wife of Shankar Balaji, a resident of Door No.5/884, Annai Therasa Street, Senthil Nagar, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District, had been running an online business for cloth materials. She regularly purchased the materials from the Respondent and she paid the purchase amount to the Respondent. In the month of April, 2012 there was dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent demanded more money from the Petitioner with fake bills. Therefore, the Petitioner refused. Since the Petitioner refused to pay the fake bills, the Respondent had posted defamatory comments about the Petitioner in the social media viz., whatsapp group and facebook. Therefore, on 21.04.2013, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Dharmapuri Police Station against the Respondent and a case in CSR No.225 of 2013 was registered by the Police. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent had lodged a private Complaint against the Petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, had taken cognizance of the offences under Section 500 I.P.C. against the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the averments in the complaint for which a copy of the same is furnished along with typed set of papers. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the ingredients of the defamation under Section 499 of I.P.C. is not attracted. Therefore, the private complaint lodged by the Respondent herein in C.C.No.124 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District is to be quashed since it is nothing but an abuse of process of Court.

3.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/De-facto Complainant vehemently opposed to quash the Criminal Complaint against the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/De-facto Complainant relied on the averments in paragraph 2 of this Criminal Original Petition which is extracted as under:

"2.The petitioner states that she is residing at the above address along with her family. she has been running an online business for clothes materials. She regularly purchased the clothes materials from the respondent and she paid the purchased amounts to the respondent. During the month of April 2017 some dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent demanding more money from the petitioner with fake bills, but the petitioner refused. Thereafter the respondent was posted a defamatory word against petitioner in a Whatsapp groups and her face book. Therefore, on 21.04.2017 the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Dharmapuri Police Station against the respondent and a case in CSR No.225 of 2017 was registered by the police."

4. Further, he invited the attention of this Court to Section 499 of I.P.C.

and submitted that the ingredients of Section 499 of I.P.C. is attracted. It is for the Petitioner to take whatever the defence available to her during trial before the trial Court and not to be considered by this Court exercising discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, he sought to dismiss this petition by directing the Trial Court to proceed with the case. Further, he submitted that the Respondent/De-facto Complainant has also been arrayed as an Accused by the Petitioner herein by filing a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri, but she had not received any notice till date. He submitted that the Respondent/De-facto Complainant had