Ingredients of offence not satisfied.

Before pronouncing the order in this application for quashing on merits, this Court cannot but record a note of anguish over the conduct of Mr. O. Venkatachalam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The details leading to the above observation are given under.

M. Kalirajan, the respondent herein filed a complaint on 22-10-1998 in C.C. No. 455 of 1999 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai against Tmt. Nagarathinam, the petitioner herein, the retired Chief Doctor as Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, stating that she committed the offence of defamation under S. 500, I.P.C. by sending the lawyer notice containing the defamatory remarks.

On receipt of summons, the said Tmt. Dr. Nagarathinam filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. in Crl. O.P. No. 6815 of 1999 for quashing the above proceeding and the same was entertained and stay and notice was ordered by this Court on 8-6-1999. On service of notice in this application, the respondent/complainant filed a counter on 1-10-1999 praying for the dismissal of the above quashing application along with a petition in Cr. M.P. No. 8724 of 1999 requesting for vacating the stay granted in the main application. On 29-11-1999 this Court while vacating the stay, posted the main petition for final disposal on 30-12-1999.

Accordingly, the main petition came up for final disposal before me in December, 2000 and the case was argued by both the counsel and the matter was adjourned for orders after Christmas vacation. On 2-1-2001 the said matter came up in the list. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Natarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter afresh. Mr. O. Venkatachalam, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted his reply.

After hearing, this Court put some questions to the counsel for the respondent seeking for clarification of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent immediately retarded by saying "when your Lordship has already taken a decision, there is no use of giving reply." This Court expressed displeasure over the said statement and observed that such a statement would amount to contempt. Then, he expressed apology for such a statement and requested this Court to give further time for preparation to make suitable reply. On such a request, the case was adjourned to 8-1-2001 and it was again adjourned to 9-1-2001 from 8-1-2001.

On 9-1-2001, the matter was taken up and the learned counsel for the petitioner made further submissions. When the learned counsel for the respondent was asked to make his reply, without making the reply, he requested this Court to transfer this case to some other Court or otherwise he would withdraw his appearance. When the matter was specifically adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent to enable him to make further preparation for making reply, this Court found no reason either to transfer this case to some other Court or to allow the counsel for the respondent to withdraw his appearance. Therefore, this Court directed the counsel for the respondent to file an affidavit giving the reasons for making such a request. The learned counsel for the respondent requested time for filing the same. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned. On 17-1-2001 the learned counsel for the respondent filed his affidavit requesting for transfer to some other Judge of this Court.

On going through the affidavit, this Court found that some incorrect particulars with some derogatory remarks against this Court were given in the said affidavit. So, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit in regard to the particulars mentioned in the said affidavit. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner also filed an affidavit on 29-1-2001 stating that the circumstances shown in the affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent are factually incorrect and the request