The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and its application to defamatory matters communicated to counsel.

1. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings pending in C.C. No. 5457 of 2011 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The case relates to a complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The respondent/complainant is an Advocate and in the complaint preferred by him, he has informed that in answer to a notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of the petitioner, he had caused a reply on behalf of his clients on 27.05.2011. A rejoinder has been caused by the petitioner on 04.06.2011. The offending portions of the said rejoinder is as under:

“My client states that the defence theory set by your client is purely an after thought and your client had chosen the reply notice as a tool for defence. Your client is thinking himself as smart and intelligent and is acting cleverly with an ulterior motive and criminal intention to escape from the clutches of law. Only after the receipt of my clients notice, your client is running here and there throwing false allegations, foisting frivolous complaints against my client without any basis and trying to threaten him with his political and muscle power. The police complaint mentioned in your notice is only to safeguard your clients from the criminal offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act. Your clients are put to strict proof of the same.

My client states that your clients had called our client to a common place and had authorized you to handle the issue. With good intention our clients had abided with and came with his wife to the common place of MP’s house at Delhi on 24th May 2011. Instead of handling the issue, you had manhandle in a rude manner. While negotiation was going on you had behaved violently and rushed towards my clients wife and pulled her mobile from her hand suspecting that she is recording the incident which she did not. My client’s wife was insulted to the maximum core. They were confined with threat. Further our clients are threatened with dire consequences by your clients and your clients had created fear in the mind of our clients from coming down to Tamil Nadu, his native place. Your clients had abused my clients with unparlimentary words and are trying to tarnish the image and damage the name and reputation of our clients and ruin his life and carrier. My client is constrained to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against your client for the unfair, illegal acts which are staged on the date of so called negotiation.

My client reiterates once again that your client is liable to pay the amount as stated in our legal notice and further the alleged cheque was issued by your client for the alleged legally enforceable debt. By dishonouring the cheque, your client has committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and your client is liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence.”

4. In the complaint, the respondent contended that the said communication was read by others and as a result thereof, he came to be held in very low esteem by them. He sought cognizance of the offence. The complainant in seeking to inform the loss of reputation has also informed various facts to show that he was held to be an individual of some standing in society.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the rejoinder has been addressed under RPAD personally to the respondent. The same was meant to be read only by the respondent. The fact that it came to be read by others cannot be read as publication of defamatory imputations by the petitioner so as to attract offence under Section 499 IPC. Thus, the imputation therein was to be read as those of the Advocate. He further submitted that even otherwise a communication made by petitioner to his counsel would fall within the category of privileged communication protected against action, under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted t