To establish defamation under IPC Section 500, the complainant must prove a false statement made with intent to harm reputation, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Order :

1. By way of filing the instant Miscellaneous Petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Merta City in Criminal Complaint No.341/2014 whereby he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 120B of the IPC upon a criminal complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant after conducting an inquiry as contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the order under assail and the other material.

3. To successfully establish an offense under Section 500 of the IPC, the complainant is supposed to demonstrate through some material that any defamatory statement was made by the accused and it was made with an intention to harm the complainant. If the statement is made with the knowledge of its potential harm, then also, an action may be taken. It has to be shown that the statement so made by the accused was false, which resulted damage to the reputation of the complainant. The very purpose of enacting the above provision has been to ensure that a person who damage reputation of the other through false and malicious statement can be made accountable.

3.1. Here in this case, nowhere from the order it is revealing that what was the statement. Whether the statement was false or malicious, and foremost important aspect would be that whether the false statement resulted in damage to the reputation of the complainant. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have also gone through the complaint, moved on behalf of the respondent and felt that the respondent was the tenant of the shops constructed by the committee of Sadar Masjid Merta Road.

4. Para No.6 of the complaint complains about not taking rent of the shop and later enhancing the monthly rent. It seems that there was a dispute with regard to ejectment of respondent’s shop and there was a dispute with regard to rent of the shop. The petitioner was not present in the meeting, allegedly held by the petitioners and therefore it cannot be said that what actually the words uttered there.

5. I have also gone through the statements recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondent but feels that the ingredients which are essential to constitute offense under section 500 of the IPC are found missing. In view of the above, there is a force in the instant Misc. Petition.

6. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The order is set aside and the proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside.