1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2008. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.447 OF 2008. SAU. VAISHALI KUNDAN CHAWARE VS SMT. RAMAKANTA SUKHDEO WAGHMARE AND AN ANOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. J. Khan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri D. B. Yengal, APP for State respondent. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th MARCH, 2010. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed in Criminal Complaint No.372 of 2006. 2. The present applicant had filed the private complaint against the respondents alleging that the respondents have used the words “complainant has committed various criminal act”. The appellant has treated this averment as publication and an offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. The learned Magistrate delivered his judgment dated 2-12-2007 holding as follows: “9.................................. In this case from the evidence on record, it appears that the accused has filed her reply at Exh.34 in Misc. Application NO.135 of 2005 in the Court through her Counsel. This writing was made on the basis of information received by the accused. If it is so it cannot be inferred that the Counsel has drafted the reply exactly in the same words as has been stated by her. It is the responsibility of the Counsel to decide as to how the side of the party is to be presented and how the reply is to prepare. Since the reply in Misc. Application no.135/05 at Exh.35 has been prepared by the Counsel of the accused that “ Such a statement has not been filed with the intention to defame her. While scrutinizing the reply minutely it appears that the accused has mentioned the same with the intention to defend herself.” [Quoted from page 14-G & 14-H of Criminal application paper book] 4. The learned Magistrate seems to have been impressed with the submission that the “Complainant has committed various criminal offences” by itself does not attribute specific act of crime or offence and does not defame the 3 appellant. 5. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is a most possible view. In absence of specific imputations which would have constituted an act tarnishing the reputation of the complainant, and any vague and ambiguous statement would not by itself constitute an offence. 6. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate can certainly be agreeable. 7. In the result, the present application for leave to appeal and appeal do not call for any indulgence and are rejected. Judge //mule//