Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025the materials placed on record.3. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC alleging that the petitioner, while addressing a public gathering on 15.04.2024, at Thana Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai, in support of his allied party candidate in the general election for Parliament in the Lok Sabha made defamatory statements as against the respondent. He made a false acquisition against the respondent, defaming his services towards the people of the said constituency, thereby the petitioner caused severe damage to his reputation and there were several enquires from various people which had ultimately lowered the respondent's reputation among the general public.4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the part of the petitioner's speech which was alleged to be defamatory made by the petitioner as criticism on the functioning of the persons in the Government and as such, it would not amount to defamation. His entire speech is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the freedom guaranteed to the petitioner to criticize the persons in the Government cannot be taken away by the complaint for defamation. The speech of the petitioner is coming under the third exception of the provision under Section Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025199 of IPC. Accordingly, it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting conduct of any person touching any public question and respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further.5. The contents of the petitioner as per the respondent is in line with the above exception and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of general public. He had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate of his allied party. The complaint itself is not maintainable for the lack of territorial jurisdiction, since the Trial Court had failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, since the petitioner is residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and as such, the Trial Court ought to have ordered for enquiry before taking cognizance. He also relied upon the fourth exception of Section 499 of IPC. Accordingly, the alleged speech of the petitioner had no way harmed the reputation of the respondent.6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is the member of Parliament and elected from Chennai Central Constituency. While he was contesting in the 2024 MP election in Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025Chennai, the petitioner made defamatory statement against the respondent, thereby his reputation among the general public was completely tarnished. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly taken cognizance and the grounds raised by the petitioner can be taken into consideration only before the trial Court during trial by let-in evidence.7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.8. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. The Trial Court had taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioner made a speech while addressing a public gathering on 15.04.2024 during the election campaign of general election for the member of Parliament in the Chennai Central Constituency. The alleged statement made by the petitioner is extracted as follows:- “mnjhl ,d;idf;F ek;Kila ntl;ghsu; bghUj;j tiuf;Fk; vspikahdtu; Tg;gpl;l FuYf;F Xnlho tUgtu; ek;Kila Tl;lzp fl;rp ntl;ghsu; kf;fSf;fhf ghLglf; Toatu;/ Mdhy; vjpu;j;j epw;fpw jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpDila ntl;ghsu; mtUila brhe;j eyDf;fhf nghl;oapLfpwhu;/ mtUila brhj;Jf;fis fhg;ghw;w ntz;Lk;. ,d;Dk; brhj;Jfis tpupt[ gLj;j ntz;Lk;/ Mf ,UtUf;Fk; Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025,Jjhd; tpj;jpahrk;/ Mf kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntz;Lkh my;yJ mtUila FLk;gj;Jf;F brhj;J nru;f;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntQqkhd;D jhd; ,e;j nju;jYila nghl;o/ Mfnt kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsUf;F xU tha;g;ig jhU';fs; jhU';fs; vd;W ,Ufuk; Tg;gp c';fis nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,d;idf;F ,';nf nghl;oapLfpd;w jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpd; ntl;ghsu; ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpduhf ,Uf;fpwhu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu; ehlhSkd;w nkk;ghl;L epjp fpl;lj;jl;l 75% ePjp brynt bra;ay/ mg;god;dh ,tu; vg;go bray;gw;WUf;fhUd;D vd;gij vz;zpg; ghU';f/ mtu; vg;go kf;fSf;F nrit bra;thu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdUf;F xJf;fg;gl;l ePjpia kf;fSf;F vd;bdd;d jpl;l';fs; ntz;Lk;D nfl;L bray;gLj;jpapUe;jh ey;y ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu;/ kf;fisna ghu;g;gJ fpilahJ nju;jy; te;jhy; jhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f kWgoa[k; mLj;j nju;jy; te;jhjhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f mg;g[wk; vg;go kf;fspd; Fiwfis nfl;lKoa[k; me;j Fiwfis bjup";rpf;f Koa[k; mjdhyjhd; mtUila ehlhSkd;w bjhFjp nkk;ghl;L epjpa Kf;fhthrp bryt[ bra;ay Mf ,g;go kw;w ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu nju;e;bjLj;j ,e;j kj;jpa brd;idy vg;go ed;ik fpilf;Fk; vz;zpg;ghU';fs; mnjhl”9. The petitioner is the member of the Legislative Assembly, Edappadi, Salem District. Apart from that the petitioner is the General Secretary of opposition party and former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. As a part of his election campaign, the petitioner had discussed the plights faced by the general public of the Chennai Central Constituency. At that juncture, the petitioner made the above statements and it established the duty of the public servant to know the needs and serve accordingly. It also shows the Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025benefit of the public at large and he had no way defamed the respondent at any point of time. Further, the petitioner has right to comment on public affairs which includes the right to criticize people holding public post and also to criticize the public policies. In fact, the statement was published in Hindu News Daily. In accordance with the said news, the petitioner made statements. The Hindu news also produced before this Court dated 13.04.2024 under the heading of “Union Ministry data point to nearly 75% MPLADS funds from 2019-24 in T.N. Lying unspent”. As per data, no expenditure was listed under the Chennai Central and Vellore Parliamentary constituencies. Accordingly, the petitioner had spoken in the election campaign for the benefit of general public while canvassing his party's allied candidate for the post of member of Parliament. Therefore, the entire speech was made in a bonafide manner, having relied on the multiple media reports, which are already within the realm of public knowledge. Therefore, there is absolutely no imputations with new statement.10. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Sections 499 of IPC as follows:-Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025“ 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. ...........Third Exception — Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested. Wherein, the contents of the petitioner as per the complaint version is in align with the above illustration and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of general public. Further, the petitioner had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate of his allied party. Hence, the above said complaint does not constitute the said offence.”11. The right to dissent is a fundamental right- questions by political rival cannot be termed as defamation. The 9-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) Vs Union of India, reported in 2017 10 SCC 1 recognized and observed that right to dissent is essential part of the constitution. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025“ 266.... Our Constitution places the individual at the forefront of its focus, guaranteeing civil and political rights in Part III and embodying an aspiration for achieving socio-economic rights in Part IV. The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well-being has been utilised through history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights. Above all, it must be realised that it is the right to question, the right to scrutinise and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Those who are governed are entitled to question those who govern, about the discharge of their constitutional duties including in the provision of socio-economic welfare benefits. The power to scrutinise and to reason enables the citizens of a democratic polity to make informed decisions on basic issues which govern their rights. The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio-economic rights has been urged in the past and has been categorically rejected in the course of constitutional adjudication by this Court.”12. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held as follows:-“ The right to dissent, disagree and adopt varying and individualistic points of view inheres in every citizen of this Country. In fact, the right to dissent is the essence of a vibrant democracy, for it is only when there is dissent that different ideas would emerge which may be of help or assist the Government to improve or innovate upon its policies so that its governance would have a positive effect on the people of the country which would ultimately lead to stability, peace and development which are concomitants of good governance.”13. Therefore, the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to Hold Public Meetings is enshrined in the constitution of India and Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025they are fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India. Hence, the speech of the petitioner can only be construed as dissent and fair criticism.14. Further, the Trial Court ought to have applied its mind before taking cognizance whether the statements made by the petitioner has prima facie to issue summons for prosecution. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1434 (Para 60, 61, 62, 63, 64) has held that before issuing summons the magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and determine whether the statement is prima facie defamatory in nature before issuing summons to the accused, the court further held that if the allegation in the complaint do not constitute an offence as complained of, then the accused should not be made to undergo the rigor of trial. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the allegations prima-facie are not defamatory in nature. The Supreme Court further held that “Claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the question posed by him, cannot be termed as defamatory”.15. That apart, the Trial Court did not follow the procedure as Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The complainant had explicitly stated as follows:-“ The complainant submits that since the residence of Mr.D. Vijayakumar/Dhanapalan located at Villivakkam, the cause of action falls within the limits of V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, hence this Hon'ble Court have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case". Whereas, as per the section 199 of Cr.P.C:"Prosecution of defamation (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:***********(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint."Whereas, with respect to the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take cognizance of the offence for prosecution of defamation U/s. 199 of Cr. P. C comes under the ambit either under section 177 of the Cr.P.C:"Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed" or as per section 179 of the Cr.P.C. "Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensues When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."As per the scenario in the present case, the Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025complainant had preferred the present complaint before the Learned XIII Magistrate, Egmore Court, as per the whims and fancies of the complainant, and the present complaint is not maintainable for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is further to be noted that as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C."Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:**************Whereas, in the present case the petitioner is residing at NB 9, Sevvanthi Illam, Greenways Road, R.A Puram, Chennai in such circumstance there are no proofs available in record of the court to establish the fact that the above procedure was followed prior to sending summons to the petitioner which is not sustainable in eyes of the law.20. The Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 348 (Para 19.3 and 20) had quashed the summons issued by magistrate in a Defamation Complaint under S.499, I.P.C since the procedure under S.202(1) was not followed and the said judgement is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.”16. In view of the above, the averments made in the complaint and the statements made by the respondent did not constitute any offence under Section 500 of IPC. Therefore, the entire complaint is liable to be quashed. Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu, is hereby quashed.17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.25.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025 To 1. The Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.7661 of 202525.04.2025Page 14 of 14

Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025the materials placed on record.3. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC alleging that the petitioner, while addressing a public gathering on 15.04.2024, at Thana Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai, in support of his allied party candidate in the general election for Parliament in the Lok Sabha made defamatory statements as against the respondent. He made a false acquisition against the respondent, defaming his services towards the people of the said constituency, thereby the petitioner caused severe damage to his reputation and there were several enquires from various people which had ultimately lowered the respondent's reputation among the general public.4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the part of the petitioner's speech which was alleged to be defamatory made by the petitioner as criticism on the functioning of the persons in the Government and as such, it would not amount to defamation. His entire speech is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the freedom guaranteed to the petitioner to criticize the persons in the Government cannot be taken away by the complaint for defamation. The speech of the petitioner is coming under the third exception of the provision under Section Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025199 of IPC. Accordingly, it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting conduct of any person touching any public question and respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further.5. The contents of the petitioner as per the respondent is in line with the above exception and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of general public. He had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate of his allied party. The complaint itself is not maintainable for the lack of territorial jurisdiction, since the Trial Court had failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, since the petitioner is residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and as such, the Trial Court ought to have ordered for enquiry before taking cognizance. He also relied upon the fourth exception of Section 499 of IPC. Accordingly, the alleged speech of the petitioner had no way harmed the reputation of the respondent.6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is the member of Parliament and elected from Chennai Central Constituency. While he was contesting in the 2024 MP election in Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025Chennai, the petitioner made defamatory statement against the respondent, thereby his reputation among the general public was completely tarnished. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly taken cognizance and the grounds raised by the petitioner can be taken into consideration only before the trial Court during trial by let-in evidence.7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.8. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. The Trial Court had taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioner made a speech while addressing a public gathering on 15.04.2024 during the election campaign of general election for the member of Parliament in the Chennai Central Constituency. The alleged statement made by the petitioner is extracted as follows:- “mnjhl ,d;idf;F ek;Kila ntl;ghsu; bghUj;j tiuf;Fk; vspikahdtu; Tg;gpl;l FuYf;F Xnlho tUgtu; ek;Kila Tl;lzp fl;rp ntl;ghsu; kf;fSf;fhf ghLglf; Toatu;/ Mdhy; vjpu;j;j epw;fpw jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpDila ntl;ghsu; mtUila brhe;j eyDf;fhf nghl;oapLfpwhu;/ mtUila brhj;Jf;fis fhg;ghw;w ntz;Lk;. ,d;Dk; brhj;Jfis tpupt[ gLj;j ntz;Lk;/ Mf ,UtUf;Fk; Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025,Jjhd; tpj;jpahrk;/ Mf kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntz;Lkh my;yJ mtUila FLk;gj;Jf;F brhj;J nru;f;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntQqkhd;D jhd; ,e;j nju;jYila nghl;o/ Mfnt kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsUf;F xU tha;g;ig jhU';fs; jhU';fs; vd;W ,Ufuk; Tg;gp c';fis nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,d;idf;F ,';nf nghl;oapLfpd;w jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpd; ntl;ghsu; ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpduhf ,Uf;fpwhu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu; ehlhSkd;w nkk;ghl;L epjp fpl;lj;jl;l 75% ePjp brynt bra;ay/ mg;god;dh ,tu; vg;go bray;gw;WUf;fhUd;D vd;gij vz;zpg; ghU';f/ mtu; vg;go kf;fSf;F nrit bra;thu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdUf;F xJf;fg;gl;l ePjpia kf;fSf;F vd;bdd;d jpl;l';fs; ntz;Lk;D nfl;L bray;gLj;jpapUe;jh ey;y ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu;/ kf;fisna ghu;g;gJ fpilahJ nju;jy; te;jhy; jhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f kWgoa[k; mLj;j nju;jy; te;jhjhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f mg;g[wk; vg;go kf;fspd; Fiwfis nfl;lKoa[k; me;j Fiwfis bjup";rpf;f Koa[k; mjdhyjhd; mtUila ehlhSkd;w bjhFjp nkk;ghl;L epjpa Kf;fhthrp bryt[ bra;ay Mf ,g;go kw;w ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu nju;e;bjLj;j ,e;j kj;jpa brd;idy vg;go ed;ik fpilf;Fk; vz;zpg;ghU';fs; mnjhl”9. The petitioner is the member of the Legislative Assembly, Edappadi, Salem District. Apart from that the petitioner is the General Secretary of opposition party and former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. As a part of his election campaign, the petitioner had discussed the plights faced by the general public of the Chennai Central Constituency. At that juncture, the petitioner made the above statements and it established the duty of the public servant to know the needs and serve accordingly. It also shows the Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025benefit of the public at large and he had no way defamed the respondent at any point of time. Further, the petitioner has right to comment on public affairs which includes the right to criticize people holding public post and also to criticize the public policies. In fact, the statement was published in Hindu News Daily. In accordance with the said news, the petitioner made statements. The Hindu news also produced before this Court dated 13.04.2024 under the heading of “Union Ministry data point to nearly 75% MPLADS funds from 2019-24 in T.N. Lying unspent”. As per data, no expenditure was listed under the Chennai Central and Vellore Parliamentary constituencies. Accordingly, the petitioner had spoken in the election campaign for the benefit of general public while canvassing his party's allied candidate for the post of member of Parliament. Therefore, the entire speech was made in a bonafide manner, having relied on the multiple media reports, which are already within the realm of public knowledge. Therefore, there is absolutely no imputations with new statement.10. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Sections 499 of IPC as follows:-Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025“ 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. ...........Third Exception — Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested. Wherein, the contents of the petitioner as per the complaint version is in align with the above illustration and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of general public. Further, the petitioner had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate of his allied party. Hence, the above said complaint does not constitute the said offence.”11. The right to dissent is a fundamental right- questions by political rival cannot be termed as defamation. The 9-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) Vs Union of India, reported in 2017 10 SCC 1 recognized and observed that right to dissent is essential part of the constitution. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025“ 266.... Our Constitution places the individual at the forefront of its focus, guaranteeing civil and political rights in Part III and embodying an aspiration for achieving socio-economic rights in Part IV. The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well-being has been utilised through history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights. Above all, it must be realised that it is the right to question, the right to scrutinise and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Those who are governed are entitled to question those who govern, about the discharge of their constitutional duties including in the provision of socio-economic welfare benefits. The power to scrutinise and to reason enables the citizens of a democratic polity to make informed decisions on basic issues which govern their rights. The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio-economic rights has been urged in the past and has been categorically rejected in the course of constitutional adjudication by this Court.”12. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held as follows:-“ The right to dissent, disagree and adopt varying and individualistic points of view inheres in every citizen of this Country. In fact, the right to dissent is the essence of a vibrant democracy, for it is only when there is dissent that different ideas would emerge which may be of help or assist the Government to improve or innovate upon its policies so that its governance would have a positive effect on the people of the country which would ultimately lead to stability, peace and development which are concomitants of good governance.”13. Therefore, the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to Hold Public Meetings is enshrined in the constitution of India and Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025they are fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India. Hence, the speech of the petitioner can only be construed as dissent and fair criticism.14. Further, the Trial Court ought to have applied its mind before taking cognizance whether the statements made by the petitioner has prima facie to issue summons for prosecution. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1434 (Para 60, 61, 62, 63, 64) has held that before issuing summons the magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and determine whether the statement is prima facie defamatory in nature before issuing summons to the accused, the court further held that if the allegation in the complaint do not constitute an offence as complained of, then the accused should not be made to undergo the rigor of trial. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the allegations prima-facie are not defamatory in nature. The Supreme Court further held that “Claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the question posed by him, cannot be termed as defamatory”.15. That apart, the Trial Court did not follow the procedure as Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The complainant had explicitly stated as follows:-“ The complainant submits that since the residence of Mr.D. Vijayakumar/Dhanapalan located at Villivakkam, the cause of action falls within the limits of V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, hence this Hon'ble Court have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case". Whereas, as per the section 199 of Cr.P.C:"Prosecution of defamation (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:***********(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint."Whereas, with respect to the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take cognizance of the offence for prosecution of defamation U/s. 199 of Cr. P. C comes under the ambit either under section 177 of the Cr.P.C:"Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed" or as per section 179 of the Cr.P.C. "Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensues When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."As per the scenario in the present case, the Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025complainant had preferred the present complaint before the Learned XIII Magistrate, Egmore Court, as per the whims and fancies of the complainant, and the present complaint is not maintainable for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is further to be noted that as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C."Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:**************Whereas, in the present case the petitioner is residing at NB 9, Sevvanthi Illam, Greenways Road, R.A Puram, Chennai in such circumstance there are no proofs available in record of the court to establish the fact that the above procedure was followed prior to sending summons to the petitioner which is not sustainable in eyes of the law.20. The Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 348 (Para 19.3 and 20) had quashed the summons issued by magistrate in a Defamation Complaint under S.499, I.P.C since the procedure under S.202(1) was not followed and the said judgement is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.”16. In view of the above, the averments made in the complaint and the statements made by the respondent did not constitute any offence under Section 500 of IPC. Therefore, the entire complaint is liable to be quashed. Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu, is hereby quashed.17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.25.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025 To 1. The Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.7661 of 202525.04.2025Page 14 of 14