JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (?Code? for short) the Petitioner which has been arrayed as an accused in a complaint case (1. CC Case No. 47 of 1982) by the opposite party an Advocate, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Parlakhemundi has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding mainly on two grounds. First, in the absence of the opposite party in Court on 23-11-1982 the complaint petition should have been dismissed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and second, even though the -allegations made in the complaint petition are accepted as true in their face value, they will not prima facie make out a case u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code (?I.P.C.? for short) against the Petitioner. 2. I have heard Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and find that none is present on behalf of the opposite party. The State has, however, been represented by the Additional Standing Counsel. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Patnaik relating to the first ground of attack, because the order dated 23-11-1982 was purely an interlocutory character passed by the learned Court below which is not revisable according to the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is necessary to state a few facts. In a suit for damages for malicious prosecution (M. S. 19 of 1981) against the Petitioner by another person, the opposite party was first the Plaintiff?s Advocate and subsequently he chose to be a witness and was examined as p.w. 2. The Petitioner?s Advocate in the said suit put a suggestion in cross-examination to the opposite party and he answered them in the following manner: ... It is not a fact that I demanded Rs. 400/- from Defendant threatening him that if he fails to pay me Rs. 400/- the present suit will be filed against him. Basing on the suggestion which was answered in the above manner, the petition of complaint was filed on the ground that the question put to the opposite party was intended to defame him. So, the only point for consideration is whether the question to the aforesaid answer was meant to defame the opposite party within the meaning of ?defamation? under? Section 499, Indian Penal Code. 3. So, the only point for consideration is whether the question to the aforesaid answer was meant to defame the opposite party within the meaning of ?defamation? under? Section 499, Indian Penal Code. 3. Defamation has been defined in Section 499; Indian Penal Code. It is quoted as relevant to the case: 499. Defamation. - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or published 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, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. xx xx xx. Explanation 4. - No imputation is said to harm a person?s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers 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 causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful, xx xx xx 4. The virtues of honesty and integrity to a lawyer is as sacred as chastity to a woman. If a lawyer is reputed to be dishonest who receives his remuneration not only from his client, but also is in the habit of receiving money from his opponent as illegal gratification, loses his credence and cannot prosper in the profession. As honest and sincere lawyer on the other hand goes steady with his clients and gets recognition in due course. If honesty and integrity of a lawyer is doubted on the ground that he is in the habit of demanding gratification from his clients? opponents, his reputation in the eyes of Judges and Magistrates, members of the Bar and the general litigants suffers to a great extent. He may even be looked down upon in the society although in a particular case he may act honestly. 5. The Petitioner can be imputed with the knowledge that if allegation of dishonesty was made in Court against the opposite party which would go down in public records it is likely to lower the moral and intellectual character. He may even be looked down upon in the society although in a particular case he may act honestly. 5. The Petitioner can be imputed with the knowledge that if allegation of dishonesty was made in Court against the opposite party which would go down in public records it is likely to lower the moral and intellectual character. If during trial he would take the defence of justification and truth of the allegation it would be completely a different matter and the case will be decided on evidence in the light of such defence. For the present, however, there is no record to show that there was any apparent basis for asking the question challenging the honesty and integrity of the opposite party. In consideration of the above facts, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner u/s 500, I.P.C. 6. The view I have taken will not be binding on the learned trial Judge. He will try the case, record evidence and hear arguments as will be advanced before him. There upon he shall form his own opinion as to whether the question put would amount to defamation within the definition of Section 499, I.P.C. or not. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, I find no merit in the original revision which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed