The requirement for an imputation to harm a person's reputation and the printing or engraving of defamatory matter under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of IPC.

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.662 of 2016 by order dated 29.09.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is an Advocate by profession. In respect of a land related dispute the petitioner had filed a Original Suit in O.S.No.400 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam and obtained a decree in his favour. The suit claims to have been filed against the Respondents 2 and 3.

3. In order to require some compliance, pursuant to the said decree obtained by the petitioner, as according to the petitioner, the Respondents 2 and 3 allegedly had violated the orders of the Civil Court, the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the Respondents 2 and 3 on 31.01.2015 called upon them to do some compliance as has been sought for in the said legal notice.

4. In response to the said legal notice, the Respondents 2 and 3 have caused a reply, through their lawyer, who is none other than the first Respondent herein, to the petitioner, on 17.02.2015.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in the said reply dated 17.02.2015 issued by the first Respondent on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3, instead of giving reply only to the issue raised in the legal notice dated 31.01.2015, the Respondents had uttered some unconnected issues, whereby some unfounded allegations were made against the petitioner.

6. On seeing the said reply received by the petitioner, since he thought of giving a rejoinder, he had also sent a rejoinder on 04.03.2015 to the Respondents. In the said rejoinder, the petitioner had demanded the Respondents to convene the Advocate Association Meeting of Tindivanam Bar, before which, it was demanded by the petitioner, through the said rejoinder that, the first Respondent should seek for a public apology and also to give a written commitment that this kind of activities would not be undertaken by the first respondent in future.

7. Thereafter, since nothing had come from the respondents as he demanded, the petitioner had chosen to approach the Court below by filing a Private Complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of IPC.

8. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate had examined upon oath of the complainant and also examined two other persons on behalf of the complainant.

9. After having considered the statement given by the complainant and other two persons, through the said examination conducted by the lower Court, the learned Magistrate through the impugned order dated 29.09.2016, has rejected the said Private Complaint, as there is no prima facie case made out for the alleged offence, for which the said complaint was given.

10. Challenging the said order dated 29.09.2016, the present Revision has been filed.

11. I have heard Mr. Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has taken me to the notice sent by the petitioner on 31.01.2015, the reply given by the Respondents on 17.02.2015 and the rejoinder of the petitioner dated 04.03.2015.

12. By relying upon these documents, Mr. Gnanasekar would submit that, since the petitioner had obtained a decree in his favour, in order to compel the respondents 2 and 3 to strictly adhere to the terms of the said decree, had issued a legal notice. If at all the respondents 2 and 3 had to rebut by way of sending reply through the first respondent, the said reply should have confined only to the facts, which are warranted to be traversed in the said reply notice.

13. However, the reply notice dated 17.02.2015 issued by the first respondent on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, has made so many unwarranted allegations against the petitioner, not only in the context of the issue raised in the notice, but also about the professional conduct of the petitioner, as an Advocate. In th