Defamatory publications protected under Section 499 IPC exceptions for public good, good faith, and protection of interests if supported by evidence.

ORDER :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in CC.No.11750 of 2022 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai against the petitioner.

2. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner has deliberately involved in malicious, reckless defamatory publications against him in multiple public platforms including YouTube interviews and Facebook posts using abusive and scandalous expressions. The petitioner also made allegations against the respondent that he has criminal antecedents without any lawful adjudication. It was alleged that the respondent falsely represented himself as Professor and thereby misled the Government as if he pursued Master Degree in Criminology Department at Madras University and is also pursuing Ph.D. in the said University. On the complaint, the trial court had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500 IPC & 120 B of IPC and issued summons.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a journalist in a YouTube channel named ‘Desathin Kural’ and he is also a coordinator of all Tamil Nadu Students Association. In the month of October 2021, the respondent was appointed as a member of Srilinkan Tamils Welfare Committee. The respondent falsely represented himself as Doctorate without even completing Ph.D. The petitioner had written an article with regards to the fraudulent nature of the respondent with necessary evidences on a Facebook page in the public interest. The article was published by the petitioner about the respondent as if the persons who were victimised by the respondent approached the petitioner and confronted about his fraudulent nature and due to which there are complaints against him with the allegation of cheating. Therefore, the petitioner published the article in his Facebook page to protect the public interest that no innocent persons should be cheated by the respondent in future. Hence, it would not amount to any defamation since it is coming under the exceptions of the provision under Section 499 of IPC.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner discloses clear and specific ingredients to attract the offence under Section 500 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement and also all the materials produced by the respondent, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance and the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only before the trial court by the letting in evidence. The petitioner had deliberately involved in malicious, reckless and defamatory publications against the respondent in multiple public platforms. The petitioner fraudulently alleged that criminal cases have been registered against the respondent. There is absolutely no material to prove that criminal cases have been registered against the respondent. Mere receipt of complainants and issuance of CSR Nos. would not amount to registration of FIR. The persons who stated in the YouTube that they were cheated by the respondent, are facing criminal prosecutions. Therefore, no exception is available for the petitioner. In order to invoke the First exception to Section 499 of IPC, the petitioner must prove truth and public good. Whether the imputations are proved and whether publication was for public good are the questions of fact and the same require evidence before the trial court. Therefore, the same cannot be considered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings. Further, whether the petitioner acted in good faith under the Ninth exception would be a question to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case during trial. Good faith requires due care and attention. Therefore, reckless publication of unverified allegations coupled with abusive language negates good faith. Therefore, burden of proving good faith lies upon the