JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and quash the same. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, for the offence under Sections 120 B and 500 IPC. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, on 21.10.2011, the 1st respondent had contested for the post of President for the Thenkarai Town Panchayat from AIADMK party. The 2nd respondent along with his comrades were heaping false accusations again the 1st respondent in the midst of voters. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent won the elections. After the swearing in of the 1st respondent to the office of the President of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, the 2nd respondent along with elected opposition ward members created trouble in the day to day administration of the said Town Panchayat. While being so, the respondents 2 to 10 herein in order to malign and defame the 1st respondent had preferred a petition dated 12.12.2012 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat. Since the allegations in the said petition were false, no action was initiated. The allegation against the petitioner levelled by the 1st respondent is that, the petitioner on 13.12.2012 had published the fact regarding the said petition preferred by the respondents 2 to 10 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, due to which, he was defamed. The complaint given by the 1st respondent against the petitioner was taken on file in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition before this Court. 4. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the cognizance taken and trial in C.C.No.147 of 2013 is abuse of process of law. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition before this Court. 4. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the cognizance taken and trial in C.C.No.147 of 2013 is abuse of process of law. The Lower Court failed to consider the fact that the article published on 13.12.2012 is only a news article and not a single word defamatory or derogatory is published against any one much less than the 1st respondent. The Lower Court, also failed to consider the fact that publishing of news article will not amount to defamation when the same does not reveal anything defamatory or derogatory. The news published by the petitioner is the factual happening on 12.12.2012 even as per the admission of the complainant himself. While being so, mere publication of the factual happenings without any personal imputation will not amount to defamatory statements. 5. The petitioner has further averred in the petition that the said article is published to bring to light the happenings in the council meetings and the allegations levelled against the complainant and nothing defamatory is published by the petitioner on its own. The media owes a duty to the public to keep them informed about the happenings in the country daily. Mere publications and telecast of news about the state of affairs of council meetings will not amount to an offence under Sections 120 B & 500 IPC. The main ingredients of the offence under Sections 120 B & 500 IPC is making or publishing any imputation concerning any person with criminal conspiracy. Mere publishing of news article without any defamatory or derogatory allegations against any one much less than the 1st respondent would not amount to defamation. 6. The petitioner has moreover stated in the petition that the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, without considering the above facts in a mechanical manner had taken the complaint on file as against the petitioner and issued summons for his appearance when the article and complaint itself does not make out an offence under Sections 120 B & 500 IPC as against the petitioner. Taking the complaint on file is an attempt to interfere with the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and on that ground the complaint is liable to be quashed. Taking the complaint on file is an attempt to interfere with the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and on that ground the complaint is liable to be quashed. Taking cognizance of the complaint is nothing but interference with the freedom of press which is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to the citizen in any democratic society. Any attempt to interfere with that right or to stifle that right would amount to violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and consequently such attempt is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the news published on 13.12.2012 is the factual happening on 12.12.2012 and no article has been published against anyone defamatory or derogatory. Further, he would submit that the said article is published only to bring to light the day-to-day happenings in the council meetings and they have not published anything defamatory on their own. 8. The learned counsel appearing for R1 would submit that the respondents 2 to 10 have intentionally filed a petition before the Executive Officer to defame the 1st respondent and there is absolutely no truth in the allegation made in the petition. Further, he would submit that since there was false allegation made in the petition, the authorities have not taken any action till now. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for R1, and perused the materials available on record. 10. On perusal of the records, the allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner, on 13.12.2012, had published the fact regarding the petition preferred by the respondents 2 to 10 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat by making false allegations against the 1st respondent/complainant. 11. On perusal of the private complaint given by the 1st respondent before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, it is seen that, on 21.10.2011, the 1st respondent had contested for the post of President for the Thenkarai Town Panchayat from AIADMK party. The 2nd respondent along with his comrades were heaping false accusations again the 1st respondent in the midst of voters. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent won the election. The 2nd respondent along with his comrades were heaping false accusations again the 1st respondent in the midst of voters. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent won the election. After the 1st respondent was sworn in as President in Thenkarai Town Panchayat, the 2nd respondent along with elected opposition ward members created trouble in the day to day administration of the said Town Panchayat. While being so, the respondents 2 to 10 had preferred a petition dated 12.12.2012 against the 1st respondent to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat. The petitioner herein had published the said fact in “Dinakaran Tamil Newspaper” on 13.12.2012. Due to the said publications, 1st respondent was very much defamed among the public and relatives, and therefore, he preferred this complaint. 12. In this regard, on perusal of the publications dated 13.12.2012 made by the petitioner, it is seen that, on 12.12.2012, a council meeting which was led by the 1st respondent was held near Coimbatore among the councillors of Thenkarai Municipality. In the said meeting, the 2nd respondent had given a petition which was signed by the respondents 2 to 10 to the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat, wherein, the respondents 2 to 10 had given certain allegations against the 1st respondent, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 13. On going through the above publications made by the petitioner, this Court does not find any allegations to charge the petitioner under Sections 120 B and 500 IPC. 14. It is absolutely clear from the publications made by the petitioner that the petitioner as a news reporter has published only the grievances which were placed before the Executive Officer of Thenkarai Town Panchayat and nothing defamatory was published by him against the 1st respondent. Though the allegations in the said publications are against the 1st respondent, it was reported only based on the petition received from the respondents 2 to 10 and not by the petitioner on his own. Further, the 1st respondent himself has admitted in his complaint that it is the respondents 2 to 10 who have given a petition to the Executive Officer by making false allegations against him. While being so, the petitioner herein cannot be stated as an accused and punished under the Act, as he has done only his duty as a reporter and not anything against the 1st respondent. While being so, the petitioner herein cannot be stated as an accused and punished under the Act, as he has done only his duty as a reporter and not anything against the 1st respondent. Hence, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 against the petitioner are not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.