Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition before this Court seeking 'Grant of Leave' to prefer an Appeal against the Judgment in C.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ulundurpet.

3. The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.98 of 2013, on 03.10.2016, at paragraph 36(6), had, among other things, observed that '... between the Complainant (Appellant) and the Accused (Respondents) in the Civil Suit relating to the ownership of property as to whom it belong, the Judgment is not yet delivered; the Complainant only after establishing his right in the aforesaid Suit (O.S.No.170 of 2013) should have filed the Complaint'. Further, it was to be opined that the complaint was filed in a routine fashion and that too prematurely and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had not established his charge against the Respondents/Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the Respondents 1 to 6/A1 to A6 not guilty and acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 03.10.2016, the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Crl.A.Sr.No.50860 of 2016. Before the said filing of aforestated Criminal Appeal, the Petitioner has projected the Crl.O.P.No.27437 of 2016 praying for permission in his favour to grant him the Leave to prefer the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. Questioning the Judgment of Acquittal dated 03.10.2016 in C.C.No.98 of 2013 passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant contends that the trial Court had committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the action of the Respondents/Accused do fall within the Exception Nos.1, 9 and 10 of Section 499 I.P.C. In fact, the said conclusion is incorrect in Law and also against the available material evidence on record.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant urges before this Court that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had established his case by examining the witnesses and indeed, the impugned Publication in daily Dinamalar dated 20.05.2013 was widely circulated and read among the persons in locality.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that the impugned Publication had caused disrepute and in reality, lower the reputation of the Petitioner/Complainant and that apart, the Publication in question was knowingly made by the Respondents/ Accused and therefore, the ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. were made out. Unfortunately, the trial Court had not convicted the Respondents/Accused, but it acquitted the Respondents/Accused by an erroneous appreciation of Law. In short, the Judgment of Acquittal of the trial Court is a perverse one and also, contrary to the relevant material evidence on record.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Respondents/Accused lay a claim in respect of the suit property and had filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Villupuram and the same is pending as on date.

9. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to take a stand that in the suit originally an ex parte injunction was granted. Besides this, the trial Court had committed an error in holding that the Respondents/Accused have established truth in the matter and also, the finding of the trial Court that the subject matter in issue came within Exception No.1 was absolutely a perverse one which needs to be set aside by this Court, in the interest of Justice.

10. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously projects an argument that the Respondents/ Accused, after having made the Publication in