K.M.JOSEPH, J. - (1.) The appellant is the second accused in criminal complaint filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant ', for short). The appellant filed a Petition under Section 482 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.PC ', for short), seeking to quash the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the appellant pursuant to the complaint which seeks to invoke Sections 120B, 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC ', for short). THE COMPLAINT
(2.) The complainant is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling asbestos cement sheets with seven manufacturing plants and more than twenty-five marketing offices all over India. It is further, inter alia, stated that the product is manufactured in all its plants in an environment friendly manner. The first accused is alleged to be the Coordinator of Ban Asbestos India, a group hosted by the appellant. Articles are regularly published in the said group. On 21.11.2008, an article was published. It was captioned "Poisoning the system: Hindustan Times ". The complaint targeted renowned politicians of the country who were named and who had nothing to do with the ownership and management of the company. Complainant pleads shock on seeing the article dated 31.07.2008 captioned "Visaka Asbestos Industries making gains ". It is stated that asbestos cement sheets have been manufactured for more than 70 years in India. First accused singled out the complainant though there are other groups manufacturing asbestos cement products. The relevant part, which is pertinent to the appellant is contained in paragraph-11: "11. Complainant most humbly and respectfully submits that the Accused No.1 's statement in the articles in the above mentioned group hosted by the Accused No.2 is filled with hatred towards Complainant which is defamatory in nature, and which a person of ordinary intelligence in society would believe the said statements. Indeed the said statement injured the reputation of Complainant. The act of the accused in posting certain defamatory articles in the cyber space, which is visited by innumerable internet surfers which has vide usage all over the world in who 's mind the complainant company is being caused with such defamatory false statements. The service provider like Accused No.2 has made it easier than ever before to disseminate defamatory statements to the world wide audience without taking any due care and diligence to prevent it. The Accused No.2 has abused the services provided by it, because both the articles in the group hosted by it was targeted towards a particular company which is well within the knowledge of the Accused No.2. " (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) Cause of action is mentioned at paragraph-15 and it reads as follows: "15. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of Action for the complainant arose on 31st July, 2008, when an article "Visaka Asbestos Industries making gains " was disseminated by accused no.1 in "Ban asbestos India " group hosted by accused no.2 and 21st November 2008 when the second article "Poisoning the system: Hindustan Times " was disseminated by the accused no.1 in "Bank Asbestos India " group hosted by accused no.2 and on 10.12.2008 when the notice to withdraw such articles was issued by the Complainant and on subsequent dates. " ;