The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the requirement of intention to harm or knowledge of harm to the reputation of the person, and the provision of slight harm under Section 95. The judgment also emphasizes the prevention of penalization of negligible wrongs.

1. Seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings relating to the private complaint in C.C.No.2073 of 2011 on the file of the Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai this petition has been filed by the petitioner after invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of this criminal original petition are as under:

The respondent herein was the Pastor/Chaplin of Christ Church and the Honorary Secretary of the Select Vestry/Pastorate Committee of Christ Church at Anna Salai, Chennai and all the petitioners herein are the members of the above said committee.

3. That on 15.04.2011, the petitioners herein being the members of the Pastorate Committee have passed a resolution removing the respondent from the post of Pastor of Christ Church and other concomitant offices held by him and also resolved to initiate civil and criminal proceedings for the recovery of financial losses sustained by the Church and the school on account of his irregularities.

4. According to the respondent the resolution is per se defamatory and hence he has lodged a private complaint on 26.04.2011 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai alleging that the act of the petitioners would come under the purview of the penal provisions of Section 500 IPC and the same has been taken on file by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.2073 of 2011.

5. Questioning the maintainability of the private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC., the petitioners have approached this court to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2073 of 2011.

6. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing the petitioners and Mr.N.D.Bahety learned counsel for the respondent.

7. While advancing his arguments Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to that the complaint filed by the respondent did not disclose any ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. He has also added that the complainant did not state in clear words which portion of the resolution dated 15.04.2011 is defamatory and since the specific imputation is absent in the complaint it is liable to be rejected. He has also argued that the complainant also did not disclose that the petitioners were having mens rea with a criminal intention to defame the respondent. He would further submit that even according to the respondent the committee consisting of the petitioners had only proposed to initiate civil and criminal activities for the loss incurred by the church, which will not amount that the petitioners have intended to harm the reputation of the respondent. He has also maintained that the resolution dated 15.04.2011 was entered in the minutes of the committee proceedings and it was intimated to the respondent by a private intimation and there is nothing on record to show that the above resolution was published for the public circulation.

8. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments has made reference to Section 499 of IPC.

9. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code deals with defamation. Section 499 defines as to what is defamation. It reads as follows;

"Section 499 - 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.

Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association