JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer in the present petition is to call for the records of FIR registered in Crime No.529 of 2017, dated 29.09.2017 pending on the file of the first respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3. The Petitioner, along with 16 others, have been implicated in Crime No.529 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent herein for the offences under Section 143, 120B, 124A,153, 500, 504 & 506(ii) of IPC. According to the petitioner, he was arrayed as 15th accused in the said crime. 4. The petitioner is the State Secretary of Karnataka of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party (AIADMK). Based on the pamphlets issued in connection with 109th Birthday celebrations of Mr.Anna Durai (Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) and the 139th Birthday Celebration of Thanthai Periyar, the FIR has been registered against them. According to Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the entire complaint is false, vindictive and without any justification, since neither the averments in pamphlet nor in the complaint, makes out the offences alleged in the FIR. 5. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that there is a direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to initiate action against the persons who may involve in any kind of activities, disrupting the normal lives of the general public. Furthermore, it is his submission that since the pamphlets prima facie constitutes all the offences referred to in the FIR, there is no illegality in its registration. 6. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the wordings in the pamphlets and the complaint, strenuously contended that neither the offences of sedition under Section 124 A nor the other offences punishable under IPC are made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the ingredients of the offences have not been made out, the FIR is liable to be quashed, since the complaint has been taken on file with an ulterior motive and the same amounts to gross abuse of process of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the ingredients of the offences have not been made out, the FIR is liable to be quashed, since the complaint has been taken on file with an ulterior motive and the same amounts to gross abuse of process of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, it is the fundamental right of every citizen of this country to peacefully protest and demonstrate any action and therefore in the absence of any violation, demonstration or protest, the offences cannot, by no stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed. By relying on the provisions of Sections 124A and 500 IPC, he contended that the complaint does not make out essential ingredients ofthe offences of sedition and defamation. The learned counsel also submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the learned Advocate General was made in the background of an agitation over the NEET Examination and since the present pamphlets/complaints relate to the birth centenary celebrations of AIADMK party leaders, the action said to have been initiated based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not sustainable. 8. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 133 of 2017, dated 08.09.2017, there is an interim direction to the Chief Secretary to ensure that there is no disruption to the normal life of the citizens of the State and in case of any violation, the Government was directed to book the violators under the appropriate law. Since one of the agendas mentioned in the pamphlet/complaint also relate to calling upon the protesters to agitate against the NEET Exams, the first respondent police are justified in filing the FIR. Moreover, the learned Advocate General by pointing out the wordings in the pamphlet as well as the complaint, submitted that all the offences including the offences of sedition and defamation have been clearly made out as against the petitioner and others and since the issue is under investigation, he sought for dismissal of the present criminal original petition. 9. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the both counsels and perused the materials available on record. 10. 9. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the both counsels and perused the materials available on record. 10. At the outset, it would be relevant to reiterate the various findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts and the grounds on which an FIR can be quashed by invoking Section 482 Cr.PC are very limited. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the complaint does not disclose the cognizable offences or offences of any kind, the FIR is liable to be quashed. The grounds of malafides were also advanced. It is no doubt true that, whenever a complaint does not disclose any offence or this Court admits that the investigation has been exercised, malafidely, inheritant powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can be invoked. This court is conscious of the fact that this statutory power is to be exercised sparingly with strict circumspection of rules to substantiate justice and/or prevent abuse process of this Court. 11. In this background, the averments in the complaint were cautiously and carefully examined. No doubt, it is true that the pamphlets, based on which the impugned complaint came to be registered, begins with a title(109th Birthday celebrations of Mr. Anna Durai (Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) and the 139th Birthday Celebration of Thanthai Periyar). However, from the other wordings in the pamphlets, it is seen that there are many sentences and phrases, which are usually not the agendas during such celebrations. It is further seen that in the pamphlets there is a call to the general public to demonstrate and agitate against the Central Government as well as State Government. As a matter of fact, most of these sentences/phrases in the pamphlets, as reiterated in the complaint, disclose the ingredients of the offences of sedition as well as defamation. Some of them are as follows; “LANGUAGE” 12. After quoting the aforesaid slogans, it is stated thus: “LANGUAGE” 13. Before analysing as to whether the aforesaid statements prima-facie constitute the offences of sedition and defamation punishable under Sections 124A, 499 and 500 IPC among other offences, it would be relevant to have a glance of these provisions and the ingredients therein to constitute the commission of those offences. The said sections reads as follows; 124A. Before analysing as to whether the aforesaid statements prima-facie constitute the offences of sedition and defamation punishable under Sections 124A, 499 and 500 IPC among other offences, it would be relevant to have a glance of these provisions and the ingredients therein to constitute the commission of those offences. The said sections reads as follows; 124A. Sedition: Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Classification of Offence: The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session. 499. Defamation: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4-No imputation is said to harm a person s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 500. Punishment for defamation Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Classification of Offence:- The offence under this section in case of public servant is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending and triable by Court of Session and in any other case, non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by Magistrate of the first class. 14. With the facts of the present case in mind, the ingredients to constitute the offences of sedition punishable under Section 124-A IPC would be that there must be words written, which may amounts to hatred or contempt or may excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government. 15. Likewise, to constitute an offence of defamation, the ingredients would be that the persons who committed the offence, should have expressed by words that imputes the reputation of anybody and such imputation ought to have been made with the belief that it will harm such reputation. On a reading of the printed pamphlets/complaint, all the ingredients of Section124-A, 499 and 500 IPC have been made out. The pamphlets/complaints read, in any meaning, has attempted to excite the disaffection towards the Central and State Governments and has also attempted to bringing the hatred and contempt against them. 16. What may further be required to constitute the offence of sedition is that, the message conveyed in the pamphlet/complaint should carry the intention or tendency to create disorder or disruption of law and order also. In the instant case, the pamphlet/complaint intends to harm the reputation of both Central as well as State Governments. 16. What may further be required to constitute the offence of sedition is that, the message conveyed in the pamphlet/complaint should carry the intention or tendency to create disorder or disruption of law and order also. In the instant case, the pamphlet/complaint intends to harm the reputation of both Central as well as State Governments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a Judgment reported in the case of Raghuvur Singh Vs. the State reported in AIR 1997 SC 149 has held that the distribution and circulation of seditious materials is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 124-A IPC. 17. I am unable to comprehend as to how the aforesaid slogans cannot prima facie constitute the offences of sedition or defamation. The final sentences in the pamphlets/complaints calling upon the general public to demonstrate and agitate against the State Government and Central Government on the issue of NEET Examination is one among other slogans. Since these slogans /sentences/phrases prima facie constitute the offences of sedition and defamation, the first respondent police are justified in registering the complaint against the petitioner and others. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, there was a specific direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP. (Crl.) No.133 of 2017 in the order dated 08.09.2017 (G.S. Mani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu) and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows; As an interim measure, it is directed that it shall be the obligation of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent no.1 and the Pricnipal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent no.2, to ensure that law and order is maintained through out the State in the wake of the present situation in respect of the NEET examination. The chief Secretary shall see to it that anyone involved in any kind of 'banth' or activity that disrupts the normal life and detrimentally affects law and order in the State of Tamil Nadu, shall be booked under the appropriate law. We may clearly state here that a peaceful protest or criticism or dissent is different than creation of a law and order situation. Every citizen of this country has a fundamental right to peacefully protest and demostrate, but not to cause a situation that results in violence and paralyzes the law and order situation. 19. We may clearly state here that a peaceful protest or criticism or dissent is different than creation of a law and order situation. Every citizen of this country has a fundamental right to peacefully protest and demostrate, but not to cause a situation that results in violence and paralyzes the law and order situation. 19. Since the compliant is based on the pamphlet/complaint which also calls upon the general public to agitate and demonstrate against the NEET Examination among other slogans, it cannot be said that the order of the Apex Court has been misconstrued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had, in explicit terms, directed the State Government to book violators involving in any kind of bandh or activity under the appropriate law. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though it is the fundamental right to peacefully protest and demonstrate, such an action should not cause a situation that would result in any violation of law and paralyse the law and order situation. Since the pamphlets attempt to incite the public to protest and demonstrate, the first respondent police were well within the powers to register the complaint in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. The issue implicating the petitioner for the offences made out in the complaint is a matter for investigation. What needs to be looked into at this stage, is as to whether any offence has been made out in the complaint or not? Now, that this Court has found that the complaint discloses the possible commission of the offences, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the investigation. In the result, the criminal original petition stands dismissed.