1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard forthwith.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this Writ Petition, are as follows:-

(a) The complainant in Criminal Case No.674/SS/2009 filed a complaint before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai on 31.8.2007 alleging therein that the present petitioner was indulging into character assassination and defamation of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that she is the resident of Flat No.9/2, Cassinath Building. The petitioner also resides in the same building. Flat No.12A belongs to the father-in-law of the present petitioner and it is situated just above the complainant's flat. The present petitioner had undertaken the work of carrying out repairs in the aforesaid flat i.e. flat No.12A. The complainant had filed a complaint to the Tardeo Police Station alleging therein that the accused is indulging into illegal activities which creates nuisance. On 2.9.2004, the complainant was called by the police for enquiry. The petitioner went to the police station and in the presence of the police personnel, had told the police “Constable tum us-se baat mat karo, yeh tau pagal aurat hai”. According to the complainant, she felt defamed due to the derogatory remark made by the accused.

(b) She has further alleged in the complaint that on 26.10.2005, the Public Relations Officer, Tulsiwadi Post Office, Tardeo, Mumbai had visited the premises of the said building for holding a personal enquiry regarding the complaint made by the complainant about the mailing address of the trust. According to the complainant, Navghare had visited the said building and made enquiries. He had been to the address of the complainant and had recorded the details. The accused i.e. the present petitioner met Navghare on the ground floor and had told Mr. Navghare “Yeh aurat tau aadhi pagal hai”. The complainant felt defamed again.

3. Proceedings were pending before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The present petitioner was respondent in the said matter. She has not mentioned the nature of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. According to her, the present petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply on 7.9.2005. In the said affidavit in reply, the present petitioner has stated as follows:-

“The records will show that the Applicant is a person with a grievance complex and a chronic complainant who has been picking up quarrels and shooting off letters without just case to the various authorities including the Police Authorities and Municipal Authorities, seeking to ventilate imaginary grievances and trying to make them appear real.”

According to the complainant, she felt humiliated because of the contents of the said affidavit.

4. The complainant has alleged that by a letter dated 4.4.2006, issued through her Advocate, she had called upon the accused to withdraw the defamatory allegations and tender an unconditional apology within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The accused had not complied with it. He replied the said notice by a letter dated 21.4.2006, thereby denying the contentions raised by the complainant. On 25.4.2006, in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, the petitioner has abused the complainant by making a remark that her son was deported and had gone abroad on false and forged passport. According to the complainant, the said remark was made by the accused in the presence of Joint Charity Commissioner Mr. Nanderkar and his staff who are witnesses to the said incident.

5. The verification of the complainant was recorded on 10.7.2008. it is pertinent to note that in the verification statement, the complainant has not deposed about the particular incidents or that the petitioner had made derogatory remarks against her. It is stated in para 2 of the verification statement that “I have set out in my above complaint specific details as to how the Accused has personally and in h