IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.56176 OF 2007 SUSHILA DEVI, SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BAJRANGPURI, POLICE STATION ALAMGANJ, POST OFFICE GULZARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA - 800007 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANJEET KUMAR BIMAL, SON OF SHRI SINGHESHWAR KUNWAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SHAINIDEO COLONY (CHORVA MANDIR), POLICE STATION ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. R. K. P. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR O. P. NO. 2 :- MR. SRI NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. ASHOK KUMAR NO. I, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. BINOD KUMAR NO. 2, A.P.P. ********* 3 30/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. There is a dispute between Vivekanand Singh, a lawyer in the Patna Civil Court and the petitioner who is the mother of Vivekanand Singh. Due to some dispute with respect to the property in which Vivekanand Singh is on one side of fence and the mother & other family members are on the other side of the fence, this case has been filed. Vivekanand Singh lives on the first floor of the house, whereas the petitioner lives on the ground floor of the house. The complainant is a friend of Vivekanand Singh and also a practicing lawyer of Patna City. At paragraph 9, it has been stated that the petitioner addressed a letter to the President of 2 the Patna City Bar Association making allegation against the son Vivekanand Singh wherein it is said that the complainant is the master mind of criminal conspiracy and co-operates with the criminal activities of Vivekanand Singh. The allegation is that the use of the said language amounts to defamation. The petitioner has addressed a personal letter to the President of the Bar Association after being pressurized and hounded by her son who is living in the same house. The complainant accepts that he used to visit Vivekanand Singh and sit with him as he felt that he was being targeted by his family members,. Therefore, it does appear that both, Vivekanand Singh and this complainant are deeply connected with each other. The filing of the present case is nothing but a tactics to pressurize the widowed mother. Infact the facts do not make out allegations under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code the defining section provides that whoever by words either spoken or written or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intended to harass, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame the person. 3 In the present case, a personal letter was addressed to the President of the Bar Association, Patna city, it was not by way of public announcement, rather it was an attempt by the mother to get some relief, so that someone who is responsible would sort the problems and differences between mother and son. In any event, I find that the offences under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, punishment for which has been mentioned in Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in C. A. Case No. 455 of 2007 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)