JUDGMENT U. P. Singh, J. The order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, dated 5.2.1981 for an offence under sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the Code’) is being challenged. 2. The petitioner was the Principal of Bariatu Government 'Girls' School. She was also acting as the Principal of the women’s Teachers Training College Ranchi. She resided in a quarter situated within the premises of the school. The women’s Teachers Training College, Ranchi runs during the morning hours in the same school building before the school hour begins. All the admissions for the sessions enclosing on 15th May, 1981 had been closed in October, 1980. 3. The opposite party filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi alleging that on 4.2.1981 at about 4.30 P.M. in the evening, he went to the residence of the petitioner along with another advocate Sri Lal Bhupeshwar Nath Shahdeo. The complainant was anxious for the admission of his daughter. He, therefore, wanted to enquire about the admission in Dip-in-Ed training and knocked the door of the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner came out and told the complainant that it was not an appropriate time to meet her and according to the normal practice, he could have met her after sending a slip through the peon attending at the gate. The complainant insisted upon her to furnish the information and it is then alleged that the petitioner called the complainant an idiot, used the word nonsense and asked him to go out of her residence. The complainant further insisted her to furnish the information and also called her (rude, unmannerly) whereupon she closed the door. This part of the statement that the complainant also called her impertinent, is found mentioned in the earlier information lodged, with the Police but the same was neither disclosed in the complaint petition nor in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, took cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under sections 500 and 504 of the Code. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, took cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under sections 500 and 504 of the Code. 4. Explanation 4 of section 499 of the Code reads: - “No imputation is said to harm a persons reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lower the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or cause it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.” In accordance with the provisions of Explanation 4 of section 499 of the word “harm the reputation” has to be construed and the meaning which ‘harm’ is not which the word is should be attached to the ordinary sense in used...........................by 'harm' is meant imputations on a man's character made and expressed to others, so as to lower him in their estimation, and that anything which lowers him merely in his own estimation, certainly does not constitute defamation. Here, in the present case, although, it is stated in the complaint petition as also in the statement of the complainant Petition as also in the Statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation that along with him was present one Sri Lal Bhupeshewar Nath Sahdeo an advocate there is no explanation as to why the said person was not examined to support the allegations made in the complaint. Of course, it is not necessary for the complainant to examine each and every witness in support of the complaint But in the facts and nature of the present case, the said advocate was the only person present at the time when the alleged abuses were exchanged and the complainants reputation was alleged to haw been harmed by direct imputation made by the petitioner. Therefore, it could be only in the estimation of the said Advocate that the complainant's reputation could be said to have been harmed then being no other person present. Therefore, it could be only in the estimation of the said Advocate that the complainant's reputation could be said to have been harmed then being no other person present. Thus in order to establish the allegation, even prima facie, within the meaning of Explanation 4 of section 499 I.P.C., the sad Advocate Sri Lal Bhupeshwar Nath Sahdeo was the most relevant and material witness to be examined before any such cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate for an offence under section 500 I. P. C. 5. Further, the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute the offence under section 504 of the Code. Mere abuse unaccompanied by an intention to cause breach of the peace or knowledge that a breach of the peace is likely, does not come within the purview of section 504 I.P.C. The insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted. The fact that the petitioner closed the door and refused to come out of her apartment establishes the fact that she wanted to get rid of the complainant, 6. The complainant, accompanied by said advocate, had gone to meet the petitioner a lady Principal, without any prior appointment and after the office hours when she was not obliged to receive them. The complainant insisted upon the petitioner more than once, compelling her to answer his quarries. Any respectable lady could have asked the complainant to go out of the premises and approach her in accordance with the normal practice by sending a slip or seeking a prior appointment. There was nothing wrong in the conduct of the petitioner and it was improper for the complainant to call her, ^^creht** 7. In the that the facts result, I am of the opinion disclosed did not constitute offence under sections 500 and 501 of the Code, The cognizance taken there under is, therefore, quashed and the petition is allowed. Application allowed.