IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl.o.P.No.18769 of 2006 & M.P.No.1 of 2006 1.jIshmath Basha 2.K.Bharatha Mani 3.R.Paranthaman 4.P.J.Balachandar .. Petitioners Versus G.Girija .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records of the case in CC.No.24/05 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate III, Vellore and quash the Criminal Proceedings pending therein. For petitioner ... Mr.B.Senguttuvan For Respondent ... Mr.S.Thiruvengadam O R D E R The petitioners are accused for an offence punishable under section 500 IPC. The petitioners are Chief Engineer, retired Joint Chief Engineer, Retired Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer respectively of TWAD Board, Northern Region of Vellore. 2.The complainant/respondent was working as a Stenographer in the same Office. It is alleged that in the complaint that she availed medical leave for 94 days and returned for duty on 14.10.2004. On 21.10.2004, the first accused alleged to have abused the complainant in vulgar language and further the first accused in collusion and conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 to 4, did not allow the complainant to re-join duty and made her to resign from the job. Therefore, for the scolding of the first accused and for the collusion of the other accused, a complaint has been preferred before the learned Magistrate for punishing them for Defamation and for awarding compensation. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, taken the case on file and issued notice to the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the complaint it has been stated that such abuse of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first accused alleged to have taken place in the Office and nobody was present nearby. There was no publication of the alleged defamatory imputation and therefore submit that the Offence is not made out. In so far as A2 to A4 are concerned, no specific allegation and overt act has been attributed and therefore seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that though specifically the averment has not been mentioned about the publication, the complainant may prove the same during the course of enquiry before the learned Magistrate. However, he has conceded that there is no specific allegation against accused Nos. 2 to 4. 5.I have perused the perused the entire materials available on record and heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side. 6.To substantiate the allegations under section 499 of IPC, it must satisfy the requirements of Explanation 4 of the said section, which reads as follows: "499.DEFAMATION. ....... Explanation 1........ Explanation 2........ Explanation 3........ Explanation 4 – No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person, in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." Admittedly, such abuse by the first accused alleged to have taken place in the office of the TWAD Board and the presence of the others were not at all mentioned. In the list of witnesses nobody has been cited as witnesses. Obviously there is no publication. 7.Therefore, it cannot be alleged that such imputation said to have lowered the complainant's reputation in the estimation of others. Under such circumstances, I do not find a prima facie case has been made out. In so far as accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, there is no specific allegations to constitute the offence. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Allowing the complaint to proceed against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complaint preferred by the complainant is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Rpa Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore. 2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. • 1 cc to Mr. B. Senguttuvan, Advocate SR No.44751 LA(CO) SR/12.9.2008 Crl.O.P.No.18769 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/