Defamation claims failed as peaceful protests regarding grievances, invoking Ninth Exception, protect expression under Article 19(1)(a) as legitimate communication.

1. Leave granted.

2. Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance. Not satisfied with the services provided by the respondent - developer and when, according to them, repeated entreaties did not elicit a response, the appellant - home buyers decided to resort to a unique form of protest. They erected a board / banner visible to the public at large setting out in English and Hindi languages the following statements. The English version is as follows: -
"WE PROTEST AGAINST THE BUILDER
"A SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD."
FOR

3. The respondent - developer hit back and threatened to sue them for defamation unless an apology was tendered. When the appellants refused, a criminal complaint was filed for offences punishable under S.500 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC '). The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Borivali, Mumbai, on 04/10/2016, after perusal of the complaint and the verification statement of the complainant, issued summons against the appellants for offences punishable under S.500 read with S.34 of the . A challenge in revision having failed, the appellants approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India read with S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the complaint as well as the summons issued. The High Court having turned down their plea, the appellants are before us.

4. The short question before us is whether the complaint filed by the respondent makes out a case for offences punishable under S.500 read with S.34 of the IPC against the appellants?

5. Principally, the grievance in the complaint of the respondent was that the appellants individually and in connivance with each other to spread disharmony erected / fixed two banners / boards in Hindi and English visible to the general public at large on 10/08/2015. The contents of the banner have been set out hereinabove. According to the complaint, the appellants have started a calculated campaign to defame the complainant's image and reputation, and the appellants are making false propaganda and spreading rumours. The complaint alleges that the banners have adversely affected and damaged the reputation of the complainant and have been put up with full knowledge that they are false and frivolous. The complaint alleges that the banners have been put up in the manner as to be visible to the public with the deliberate intention to defame the complainant. The complainant further alleges that it informed the Mumbai Municipal Corporation about the erection of the two banners and that ultimately the banners were removed on 29/02/2016 under the supervision of the appellants 1, 2 & 7 and other residents. The complaint alleges that the motive of the appellants was to lower the reputation of the complainant in the eye of the public at large and caused mental agony and injury to the reputation of the complainant.

6. The High Court has refused to interfere with the summons issued by holding that prima facie the imputation has propensity to cause a dent in the reputation of the complainant. The High Court, even after correctly noticing the legal position that the Court at the stage of issue of summon is not in any mann