S. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against a complaint case being No. C - 1405 of 1983 under section 499/500 I. P. C. pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore. It appears that the petitioners are Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors of a Housing Co-operative Society of which the Architects are Messrs Mukhee and Associates and Sm. Saroj, the wife of the respondent, is also one of the Directors. ( 2 ) IT appears that on 31/7/83 a letter from the petitioners and meant for the respondent's wife was delivered at their house and this letter was read by a number of relatives and other persons apart from the respondent and his wife. This letter, Annexure A makes a reference to certain facts and describes the respondent as an untrustworthy person, his conduct as unethical apart from describing him as the A. D. C. of his wife. The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners under section 499 read with section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined him and a number of witnesses and drew up proceedings. Hence, this revisional application. ( 3 ) IT is urged from the side of the petitioners that reference to the petitioner in the aforementioned letter does not amount to defamation and further that since the imputation, if any, were made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the petitioners and the other members of the Cooperative Society, the petitioners are entitled to get the protection of 9th exception to section 500 I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE relevant portions of the letter in question may be reproduced below for a proper appreciation of the facts of this case: The 29th July, 1983. Dear Mrs. Saraff, We the remaining Directors of the Board and members of the Society felt curious as to why you always need an A. D. C. , always your husband to attend to our meeting He is not a member of the Society. He identifies himself as a Diamond Jeweller businessman. Yesterday, in the face of a grave crisis of the Society, I called on your husband Mr. M. K. Saraff in his C. R. Ave. Office at about 16, 15 hours and showed him a letter signed by the Board of Directors. This letter was marked Internal and confidentialtt. He identifies himself as a Diamond Jeweller businessman. Yesterday, in the face of a grave crisis of the Society, I called on your husband Mr. M. K. Saraff in his C. R. Ave. Office at about 16, 15 hours and showed him a letter signed by the Board of Directors. This letter was marked Internal and confidentialtt. He gave me (to) understand that I have to call at your residence in Alipore this morning. Yesterday by the time I returned from your husbands Office, he, that is your husband unethically let upon the secret and divulged it to Mr. Mukherjee of the Mijee Associates against whom there are various charges of corruption committed against our Society and the latter ran amuck to various members for solace. Your husband has thus proved himself as untrustworthy. Earlier we had reports that your husband plays double role and runs parallel to the Mukjees. Your husband further confirmed that prior to my calling on him Mr. Mukherjee asked you to attend the meeting of the Board of Directors on Saturday the 30th July, 1983. This is illegal. Mr. Mukherjee has no right to do so Yours faithfully, Secretary. ( 5 ) FROM the above it becomes quite clear that the petitioners had no particular grievance against the opposite party or his wife as such, They had a lot of grievance against Mukjee and Associates, the architects. It was their feeling that the opposite party was maintaining a close contact with Mukjee Associates, as a result of which the latter got all inside information as to what went on among the Directors which caused the resentment in the minds of the petitioners against the opposite party. The petitioners felt-rightly or wrongly that the contents of the letter marked Internal and Confidential and meant for the wife of the opposite party were divulged by the opposite party to Mr. Mukherjee of Mukjee Associates and it is because of this that they described him as untrustworthy. Their suspicion that the opposite party would divulge all discussions and results arrived at the meetings of the Directors to Mukjee Associates led them to restrain the opposite party from attending this meeting along with his wife. ( 6 ) FROM the above it becomes quite clear, that the petitioners had no intention of defaming or harming the reputation of the opposite party. ( 6 ) FROM the above it becomes quite clear, that the petitioners had no intention of defaming or harming the reputation of the opposite party. The word used against the opposite party in the letter may not have been in good taste or palatable to the opposite party. But by no reasons of imagination it can be said that these words could harm his reputation in any way. Reputationt is the standing which a person has with regard to his relations, friends or neighbours or business associates. Surely it cannot be said his relations, friends, neighbours and business associates will have a very bad impression about the opposite party when they came to know that he was described by persons not related to the opposite party in any way as A. D. C. of his wife or as not a trustworthy person while dealing with Mukjee Associates. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties cites Harbhajan v. State Punjab; Sawak Ram v. R. K. Karanjia2 S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan Das3, and the unreported decision of the Hontble Mrs. Justice J. Nag, a Judge of this Court now retired in Revision case No. 88 of 1980 and he argues that the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the 9th exception to section 500 I. P. C. cannot be answered before the evidence has been gone into in this case. I do not find any great merit in this argument. In the cited cases the facts were such that the question could not be answered unless evidence was gone into. In the present case, the question of application of 9th exception does not arise at all. For in this case the allegedly defamatory material, i. e. the letter addressed by the petitioners to the wife of the opposite party does not contain the ingredients of defamation. Prima facie the letter in question does not reveal any case of defamation and the question of giving the benefit of the 9th exception to the petitioner does not arise at all. The decisions cited above have therefore no application to the facts of this case. ( 7 ) IN the light of what has been stated above, I am inclined to hold that there was really no defamation in this case and further that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance in this case. The decisions cited above have therefore no application to the facts of this case. ( 7 ) IN the light of what has been stated above, I am inclined to hold that there was really no defamation in this case and further that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance in this case. Allowing the case to go on will amount to allowing abuse on the process of the Court and wastage of public time. The proceeding before the learned Magistrate should therefore be quashed. Hence, the proceeding in case No. C/1405 of 1983 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore, 24 - parganas is hereby quashed and the Rule is made Absolute accordingly.