JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the compliant lodged by the respondent in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC, as against the petitioner. 2. The respondent filed private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that the respondent owns, prints and publishes the daily newspaper Murasoli. The petitioner is the founder of a political party and he manages a twitter handle under the name and style of Dr.S.Ramadoss with URL http://twitter.com/drramadoss (hereinafter after called as “official twitter account”). The petitioner twitted from his official twitter account on 17.10.2019. Further he also twitted four twits from his official twitter account on 19.10.2019 at about 12.07 p.m. Once again he twitted from his official twitter account on 19.11.2019 at 8.39 p.m. 3. According to the respondent, the contents of the twits are false, baseless, untrue and per se defamatory. It constitutes a calculated attempt to malign the reputation of the respondent. The constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions, which includes defamation as such, the action of the petitioner falls beyond the scope of freedom of speech. He is seeking political mileage and his ulterior motive is apparent from the twits made by him against the respondent's political party. There is no bona fide reason for raising this issue by way of twitter. Therefore, the respondent has suffered immeasurable mental agony and the reputation of the Murasoli Trust has been degraded, tarnished and smeared due to the twits made by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the respondent caused legal notice dated 22.11.2019, thereby called upon the petitioner to remove the above defamatory twits dated 17.10.2019, 19.10.2019 & 19.11.2019. Further tender an open and unconditional apology within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the notice and refrain from repeating such unethical acts in future. After receipt of the same, the petitioner issued reply notice containing untrue and defamatory statement. Hence the respondent lodged the present complaint. Further tender an open and unconditional apology within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the notice and refrain from repeating such unethical acts in future. After receipt of the same, the petitioner issued reply notice containing untrue and defamatory statement. Hence the respondent lodged the present complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the trial Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent is not at all maintainable under penal law, since the trust has no right to question the twits made by the petitioner. The trust is not a legal entity to make a complaint for defamation before the Court of law. The petitioner being the founder and leader of the political party, relentlessly fighting for securing social justice for all section of people and to eradicate poverty to provide free education for children and to eliminate corruption from public life and politics. He is the one to critically analyze the policies, acts and deed of the Governments in power and of various organizations in public domain including political parties and makes unbiased, impartial and constructive comments on the functioning of such entities in the larger interest of and the welfare of citizens of the country. 5.1. He further submitted that the rival political party leader had seen a Tamil movie “Asuran” and had twitted that the film is not a movie, but a lesson. Therefore, the petitioner had twitted that he believed that the panchami land has to be returned by the respondent trust by learning lesson from the said movie, since there has been a consistent demand from many organizations and political parties to restore panchami land from the respondent trust to its lawful owners. After the twit, the respondent's political party leader had shown the patta copy of the respondent trust in support of his claim. By way of reply, the petitioner has twitted that the patta copy is not a title document and made a demand to show the title deed and parent document related to the respondent. After the twit, the respondent's political party leader had shown the patta copy of the respondent trust in support of his claim. By way of reply, the petitioner has twitted that the patta copy is not a title document and made a demand to show the title deed and parent document related to the respondent. Though the respondent's political party leader replied that where ever it required, it will be produced at appropriate time before the suitable forum, he did not come forward to produce any title deed as promised by him. Therefore, there is no defamatory words in the twits made by the petitioner. 5.2. He further submitted that on the complaint before the National Commission for SC & ST, the respondent was issued with notice. The said notice was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.35 of 2020. In the said writ petition, the respondent categorically stated that they are tenant and not owner of the property. They are the tenant of the punjami land which belongs to one Anjugammal Trust. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. 5.3. He also submitted that the said issue was raised by various political parties including the person belongs to the same political party of the respondent. In fact, the current Minister who is holding Cabinet rank also made statement about the land in which the respondent trust is situated. However the respondent picked the petitioner alone and lodged the complaint. Further the petitioner never made any statement to defame the respondent or its political party. The petitioner raised question and it would not amount to defamation and it comes under the first exception of Section 499 of IPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1434 in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. Manish Sisodia & ors. 6. Per contra, the respondent filed counter and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner made totally seven twits thereby defamed the reputation of the respondent trust and its political party. The defamatory twits are false, baseless, untrue and per se defamatory. It is individual and severally constitute a calculated attempt to malign the reputation of the respondent. The defamatory twits are false, baseless, untrue and per se defamatory. It is individual and severally constitute a calculated attempt to malign the reputation of the respondent. Therefore, immediately the respondent caused legal notice and even after receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to remove the twits made by him. The respondent is an aggrieved party due to the defamatory twits made by the petitioner and as such, it has locus standi and the present complaint is very must maintainable. It cannot be alleged that the compliant is made against the petitioner for political reason. On plain reading of the twits prima facie constitute the offence of defamation. It was made with ulterior motive only to defame the respondent. 6.1. He further submitted that on the complaint before the National Commission for SC & ST, the respondent produced all the original documents pertaining to the respondent and the same was duly verified by then Vice Chairperson of the Commission for SC & ST, New Delhi. However, the said Vice Chairperson has become a Minister and made a statement thereby defamed the respondent trust. Hence the respondent trust filed complaint in C.C.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge/Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to MP&MLA, Chennai and the same was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10277 of 2022. This Court by an order dated 05.09.2023, dismissed the quash petition. The very same defamatory statement made by him, is now made by the petitioner herein. 6.2. While dismissing the quash petition, this Court observed that in an offence of defamation, the statement have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statement will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which the respondent trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. 6.3. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. 6.3. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case of disputed questions of fact. It has to merely go by what is alleged in the complaint and prima facie find out as to whether the offence is made out. On going through the complaint and also the materials placed, this Court is prima facie convinced that the first limb of the offence of defamation has been satisfied by the complaint given against the petitioner. The petitioner also made similar twits with same set of allegation. Therefore, the respondent made out prima facie case to constitute the offence under Section 499 of IPC., and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before the Court. 8. The respondent lodged private complaint for the offence under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. In the complaint the respondent alleged that the petitioner made twits as follows:- On 17.10.2019 at 10.36 a.m.: On 19.10.2019 at 12.07 p.m.: On 19.11.2019 at 08.39 p.m.: 9. Even according to the respondent, the respondent's political party leader only twits in his twitter account that after seeing the film Asuran, the said film is not a movie and it is a lesson. On seeing the said twit, the petitioner twitted on 17.10.2019 that, the twitter made by the respondent's political party leader is wonderful. Hope accepting the lessons taught by the said movie, the panchami land which was grabbed by the respondent would be returned to its rightful owners. Once again, the respondent's political leader had shown the copy of patta for the land in which the respondent trust is situated. By way of reply, once again, the petitioner had twitted that patta copy is not a title document and made demand to show the title deed and parent deed for the said land. For which the respondent's political party leader had twitted that title deed of the land in question would be produced before the appropriate forum on appropriate time. By way of reply, once again, the petitioner had twitted that patta copy is not a title document and made demand to show the title deed and parent deed for the said land. For which the respondent's political party leader had twitted that title deed of the land in question would be produced before the appropriate forum on appropriate time. Therefore, there was conversation by way of twits between the petitioner and respondent's political party leader and hence the petitioner made twits on 19.10.2019 and 19.11.2019 as stated above. 10. It is also seen from the twits made by the petitioner, all are in the form of questionnaire. In fact, the respondent's political party leader also made twits to produce the title of the land owned by the petitioner ad measuring 1000 acres possessed by the petitioner. By way of reply, the petitioner twitted that if the respondent's political party leader proved that the land which is allegedly possessed by him, he will return the land to the respondent's political party leader. Therefore, both are being the political party leaders, they twitted against their land allegedly possessed by them. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1434 in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs Manish Sisodia & ors., in a case of making false and defamatory statements in a press conference as the complainant was involved in corruption to the tune of Rs.2000 crores, in the matter of award of contracts for building classrooms in Delhi government schools. In the said issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India answered for the issue whether the twits attributed can be said to be per se defamatory and held as follows:- 61. Admittedly and obviously the twentyfour questions posed by Shri Vijender Gupta (A5) to respondent No.1 cannot be said to be defamatory as these questions seek answers to certain facts relating to the construction of some buildings. What is sought to be projected as defamatory, is only one statement namely “I am sure that your answer will disclose your scam in the construction of these rooms but you are avoiding to give answer but I will obtain the reply”. 62. What is sought to be projected as defamatory, is only one statement namely “I am sure that your answer will disclose your scam in the construction of these rooms but you are avoiding to give answer but I will obtain the reply”. 62. We do not know how a statement in a twit that the answers of respondent No.1 to the questions posed by the appellant will disclose his scam, can be said to be defamatory. We are afraid that even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating “I will expose your scam”, the same may not amount to defamation. Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. Therefore, we are of the view that the statement made by Shri Vijender Gupta (A5) to the effect “your answer will disclose your scam” cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of respondent No.1. 63. Unfortunately the summoning Order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, did not go into the contents of the twits made by Shri Vijender Gupta. To that extent, there was no application of mind on the part of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.” It cannot be said to be defamatory as these questions seek answers to certain facts. 12. In the case on hand, the petitioner asked several questions. In fact, some of the twits were answered by the respondent's political party leader. Therefore, it would not amount to defamation. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 499 of IPC., as follows:- “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. The First Exception. The First Exception. - imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published – it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.” The defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 of IPC., is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. The question raised by the petitioner cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the respondent. 13. Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that same questions raised by various politicians and in fact from the very same political party belongs to the respondent, raised the same questions. In support of his contention, he relied upon the statements made by the various political party including the present Cabinet Minister. However, the respondent filed this complaint only against the petitioner. It is also seen that, the respondent trust filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.35 of 2020, prohibiting the National Commission for Schedule Castes, from in any way proceeding with the hearing or adjudication of the complaint dated 21.10.2019 lodged by one R.Srinivasan, who belongs to national political party as File No.14/140/TN/2019/ESDW. On receipt of the same, the said commission issued notice dated 15.11.2019 and 13.12.2019 to the respondent for enquiry. 14. The crux of the complaint dated 21.10.2019, is that the office of the respondent trust has been illegally constructed in a panjami site. The specific stand of the respondent is that it produced all original parent documents and the same were verified by the then Vice Chairman of the commission and returned back to the respondent. However in the said writ petition, the respondent avert that the property in question, ad measuring 12 grounds and 1825 sq.ft., has not been validly purchased by its owner with title tracing back over a period of 83 years. The respondent only a tenant under the owner. However in the said writ petition, the respondent avert that the property in question, ad measuring 12 grounds and 1825 sq.ft., has not been validly purchased by its owner with title tracing back over a period of 83 years. The respondent only a tenant under the owner. The respondent also explained before the Vice Chairman of the Commission that the respondent is a tenant and the owner of the property is leased out portion of the property. 15. Further, the said Vice Chairman of the Commission has become Minister and he made press statement on 28.12.2020. Aggrieved by the said statement, the respondent filed complaint in C.C.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge/Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to MP & MLA, Chennai, for defamation. Though it was challenged before this Court, the same was dismissed by an order dated 05.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, it was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.Nos.12091-12092/2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by an order dated 27.09.2023, stayed further proceedings of the trial Court in C.C.No.47 of 2021. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner is pending before the National Commission for SC/ST and hence, the questions raised by the petitioner cannot be said to be defamatory in nature. 16. On perusal of impugned complaint though it is avert that because of the twitter made by the petitioner, the respondent suffered mental agony and the reputation of the respondent has been degraded, tarnished and smeared, the respondent failed to make out the prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. The respondent failed to make out a prima facie case that the petitioner made twits with intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation. There are no averment that on what way the twits made by the petitioner degraded or lower the reputation of the respondent trust. 17. That apart, as stated above the petitioner only raised questions and demanded to produce the parent document of the subject property, in which the respondent trust is situated. It would not harm the respondent in any way and to lower its reputation. There is no averments made in the complaint that the petitioner made defamatory allegations against the respondent. 17. That apart, as stated above the petitioner only raised questions and demanded to produce the parent document of the subject property, in which the respondent trust is situated. It would not harm the respondent in any way and to lower its reputation. There is no averments made in the complaint that the petitioner made defamatory allegations against the respondent. On reading of the complaint and the twits made by the petitioner, this Court feels that the petitioner had no intention to harm the respondent to lower its credit and dignity. The twits would not harm and defame the respondent reputation in the eye of public. It is a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that if the allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken to be true, do not constitute the offence complained, the person should not be allowed to undergo the ordeal of a trial. 18. In view of the above discussions, the impugned complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.