ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition was filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.21 of 2021 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 124(A), 153(A), 504, 505(1)(b) & 505(2) of IPC. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant.

2. The petitioner herein is a well known political commentator in the social media, running his own 'Youtube' Channel. He is also active on 'Twitter'. The tragic demise of Gen.Bipin Rawat and other army personnel on 08.12.2021 was greeted with glee by some. The petitioner identified them as belonging to 'Dravidar Kazhagam' and 'Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam'. The petitioner in his tweet raised a question as to whether Tamil Nadu under DMK rule was becoming another Kashmir. He expressed his apprehension that if the environment is conducive to breed such anti-national groups, then, there is a possibility of any conspiracy of humongous proportions being hatched. He demanded that the secessionist forces should be suppressed.

3. The defacto complainant who is the District Coordinator of the IT Wing of DMK claimed to have come across the said tweet. Thereupon, he lodged a complaint before the first respondent leading to registration of the impugned FIR.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tweet in question was more an agonised response of a true nationalist. He could not bear to see celebrations and overt expressions of joy from some quarters in Tamil Nadu following the tragic event of December 8th. As a regular commentator on current events, he expressed his apprehension that separatism was rearing its ugly head in the State of Tamil Nadu. In any event, he had taken down his tweet within a couple of hours. The petitioner had not instigated any act of violence. The petitioner is entitled to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has been an acerbic critic of the ruling party, he has been falsely implicated. Since none of the ingredients of the offences are present, he called for quashing the impugned FIR.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant contended that the petitioner's offending tweet clearly attracts the offences in question. According to them, the petitioner cannot claim protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They would point out that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and that it is very much subject to reasonable restrictions set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In the case on hand, the petitioner had crossed the legal boundaries. The offending tweet causes disaffection and hatred towards a democratically and duly elected popular government. The petitioner had without any basis raised a false alarm as if separatists are thriving in the state. Comparison with Kashmir was not only unwarranted but also positively dangerous. By alleging that the state government is facilitating separatist activity, the petitioner had laid foundation for its eventual dismissal by the Union Government. The petitioner has clearly polarised two groups of people.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that investigation is at a very early stage. The prosecution has filed an application seeking police custody of the petitioner. Only a proper interrogation would unearth further facts. The petitioner had claimed that separatists are in existence and therefore, the State has the right to obtain the materials based on which he made such a claim. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra) to drive home his contention that interference at the FIR stage in a case of this nature is not appropriate. The learned Additional Advocate General and the lear