ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.95 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

The respondent/defacto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli. It was taken on file in C.C.No.95 of 2017 by the Trial Court and recorded the statement of the respondent/defacto complainant. After satisfying himself, he decided that it is a fit case to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner by its order dated 25.02.2017.

3.Challenging the cognizance, the petitioner filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, to quash the C.C.No.95 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5.The main grievance of the respondent is that there was a money transaction between both the parties and because of the dispute, the petitioner herein, sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 13.04.2015 and subsequently, on 01.06.2015, the petitioner herein, lodged a complaint before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari and later to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In that complaint, defamatory statements were made by the accused, who is the present petitioner herein that the respondent is behaving like a 'rowdy'; the respondent along with others used to sit in the Gopal Two Wheeler Works, Villukuri and indulged in atrocities. So, according to the respondent, these are defamation uttered by the petitioner in the complaint. After enquiry, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, referred the same as false. So, because of the false complaint, he has been defamed. So, with this allegations, the respondent herein, filed the above said private complaint before the Trial Court.

6.The quashment is sought mainly on the ground that no offence as mentioned in the complaint is made out, since the ingredients under Section 499 of IPC, are not attracted to the allegations mentioned in the complaint.

Further ground is that, the contention of the complaint, was not made public the respondent is having, so many cases in various police stations.

7.The short point, which is arises for consideration is whether the allegation made by the respondent in the complaint to the police authorities will attract the ingredients under Section 499 IPC. The defamatory word said to have been used by the respondent is that the petitioner is 'rowdy'. According to the respondent, he is a practising advocate and because of such defamatory words, his reputation have been damaged in the society and that is why, he has presented the complaint before the Trial Court.

Under Section 499 IPC reads under:-

“499.Defamation-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”

8.The main ingredients of the offence is that the respondent would have used the words with an intention to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. So, as per the definition clause, what is required is the intention on the part of the respondent, for having used, such a word. The word 'rowdy', will be a defamatory word, for which, there can be no second opinion. If the respondent wants to prove that he did not have any such intention, his case must come with in any one of the exception mentioned under Section 499 IPC.

(i) 8th exception of Section 499 of IPC, reads as under:-

“ Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. - It is not defamati