ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the private complaint filed for the offence under section 500 of IPC in C.C.No.625 of 2017 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that the petitioner has caused imputation by calling him as impotent in the public and also in front of relatives and not stopping with that, the petitioner has filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.2992 of 2015 before the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai against the defacto complainant and his mother and in that Original Petition, he has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2552 of 2016, wherein he has stated that “Since the first respondent has no potency to have the child on his own.” Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that the above statement is made in public which damaged his reputation, thereby initiated proceedings under section 500 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.P.No.3992 of 2015 has been filed for custody of the child of the petitioner and he is the father of the child. The defacto complainant is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. After the death of the wife of the petitioner, the respondent and his mother detained the child and the petitioner has filed a petition for custody of the child. Therefore, some allegations made in an interlocutory petition cannot be taken as a defamatory statement. It is his further contention that there is no materials available on record to show that such statement has in fact harmed the reputation of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner.

4. Despite service of notice and name printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the respondent.

5. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant has filed a petition before the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai for custody of the child. These facts are not in dispute. The defacto complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner stating that he has harmed his reputation by calling him as impotent in public and also in front their relatives. Further, he has made a statement in an interlocutory application filed before the I Additional Family Court stating that “Since the first respondent has no potency to have the child on his own.”

6. It is not in dispute that that private complaint has been filed for lowering reputation of the respondent. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that statements made in the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner amounts to imputation. It is to be noted that the Original petition has been filed for the custody of the petition. The allegations in the interlocutory application cannot be considered as imputation at all. If the statements stated in the interlocutory applications are considered as an imputation and complaint is entertained and there will be a prosecution as a counter blast for every application. In this regard, it is relevant to refer a judgment of this Court in Geetha Vs. A.K.Dhamodharan in Crl.R.C.No..784 of 2009, dated 28.06.2021, wherein it has been held as follows :

“Here, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, the case is subjudice and it is yet to be disposed of. It is confined to comments on cases which are decided by Court and not to those cases which are subjudice. It does not cover pending matters in Court. Pending matters are immune from comments. Considering the same, the respondent/husband herein has filed a divorce petition on the ground of adultery and cruelty. He also filed a suit and made an allegation against her wife, stating that she is leading adultery life with one Anju @ Prakash, who is none other than friend of her elder son. He also pleaded that it is an illegal act and the case is yet to be disposed of. In such circumstances, whether the fact has been true or not is yet to be decided. Hence, whether the statement is true or defa