S. Seetharama Iyer and Anrother vs K.C. Ramulu alias Ramanathan

Gokulakrishnan, J.—This is a petition u/s 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 44 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupattur. There was a complaint made by the Respondent herein u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation. There seems to be some trouble between the Respondent and the Petitioners herein in respect of a marriage alliance and the Petitioners herein visited the places of the Respondent at Tirupattur and during; a heated discussion, the Petitioners herein have uttered the following words:

The Respondent herein, though served remained absent. Mr. Nagarajan the learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings to my notice the decisions in Mst. Rukmani Bai v. Radha Ballabh AIR 1955 NUC 469 Empress v. Bihari, 1883 A.W.N. 36 Empress v. Amir Hussain 1883 A.W.N. 168 and also Bahtawar Lal v. The Crown AIR 1922 Lah. 459 and states that those words taking into consideration the circumstances under which they have been uttered could, at best, amount to only vulgar abuses without any intention to harm the reputation of the Respondent here in. He also submits that use of such common abuses cannot be regarded as having any such imputation of the person towards whom they were used and that, therefore, does not constitute an offence u/s 500 , I.P.C. For this proposition, the learned Counsel cited the above quoted decisions. It is clear that S. 561-A of the Cr. P.C. can be invoked to quash proceedings in proper cases either to prevent abuse of process in court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As far as the present case is concerned, the facts of the case clearly prove that the words uttered are only vulgar abuses without any intention on the part of the Petitioners herein to harm or defame the Respondent herein. From the complaint it is clear that there is no intention to harm and there is also no knowledge to the Petitioners herein that such imputation will harm the reputation of the Respondent herein in any sense. Considering that the words uttered can at best amount to only vulgar abuses, I am of the view that no offence u/s 499 of the I.P.C. which is punishable u/s 500 of of the same has been made out against the Petitioners herein.

The very fact that the Respondent also remained absent in spite of the notice served on him shows that nothing wrong has been done to bring down the reputation of the Respondent herein. That apart, the complaint, on the face of it, and the words mentioned in the complaint cannot in my view, make out an offence u/s 499,I. P. C. punishable u/s 500 of the same and they, at best, will amount only to vulgar abuses. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings in C.C. 44 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupattur are quashed.