1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 620/2006 (Chimna Ram & Anr. V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 01/08/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Narpat Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. V.R.Mehta, public prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bali (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the trial court framed the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the material available on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners 2 that there was a public agitation of more than 500 villagers against the complainant. There is no specific role assigned to the present petitioners. I have also carefully gone through the complaint filed by the complainant. It has not been specifically stated that what were the exact words spoken or uttered by the petitioners. Even in the complaint it has not been stated that what the exact words uttered by which of the petitioner which can be said to be causing damage to the reputation of the complainant. A vague complaint has been filed by the respondent No.2. Section 499 IPC defines the defamation which provides that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. In the instant case, no specific words either spoken or uttered by the petitioners have been stated in the complaint or statement of the complainant and therefore, in my view, the essential ingredients of the offence have not been disclosed in the complaint. Thus, there is no material prima-facie to presume that the petitioners committed the offence for which charge has been framed. 3 Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 8.5.2006 passed by the trial court is set aside and the petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 500 IPC. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp