In this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the proceeding of Case No. C.R. 655/82 under section 500 IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur. Both the complainant and the accused petitioner are members of Tezpur Bar. Allegation in the complaint that on 6.8.82, in the cross-examination of witnesses in C. R. Case No. 953/81 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, the complainant, the counsel engaged in the said case, having termed a question put in cross-examination by the accused-petitioner-the engaged counsel of the opposite party as irrelevant and useless, the accused-petitioner suddenly became angry and made indecent gesture and dubbed the complainant-opposite party-"ignorant"... "you do not know anything” ... "Do not teach me boy, I will teach you" etc. It is alleged in the complaint that these utterances were made by the accused-petitioner before litigants and public, present in front of the Court room of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is undesirable however, sometime in the course of conducting cases some Advocates lose temper and utters unpalatable words. But such utterance is trivial and too petty to expose an Advocate to all the trouble and worry of a criminal trial. Learned counsel submits that the offensive words as alleged in the complaint petition, did not cause any harm nor intended to cause harm, but were uttered on the heat of the moment and that too by an aged Advocate of the Bar at another Advocate namely the complainant who is much younger in age and the offensive words as alleged are governed by exception under section 95 IPC. As such, the impugned proceeding is tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court. As such, the impugned proceeding is tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of the contention, learned counsel has .placed reliance on the decisions on the following cases- 1) In Jasraj Jagga vs. Emperor, (AIR 1929 Lahore 234) 2) Phillip Rangel vs. Emperor, (AIR 1932 Bombay 193) 3) Sadananda Jasb vs. Sibaka Hazra, (AIR 1954 Calcutta 289) 4) Veda Meneres vs. Yusuf Khan, ( AIR 1966 SC 1773 ) In the case of Jasraj Jagga (supra) the complainant having suggested to search for his missing book in the bundle of books of accused, the accused, a pleader in reply stated that he was not in the habit of stealing books like the complainant. In a case under section 500, IPC against that utterance, the High Court at Lahore held that the matter was too petty to base complaint under section 500, IPC and the utterance was covered by the exception under section 95, IPC. In the case of Phillip Range] (supra) in a meeting of Board of Directors of Limited Company consisting of 40 members, the accused Uttered at others- "You damn bloody, bastard and cads", the High Court of Bombay held that, that utterance did not amount to insult even there was technical offence under section 504, IPC in view of the triviality, the utterance was covered by the section 95 IPC. In the case of Sadananda Jash (supra) the accused said to the complainant that- "you are telling lie". In the said case, it was held by the High Court (Calcutta) that intercourse in civilized society would come to an end, if for certain words uttered, a person found himself exposed to all the trouble and worry o a criminal trial. The acquittal of the accused petitioner in a complaint under section 506, IPC, for the words "you are telling lie", was held to be fully justified as the utterance was covered by section 95 IPC. In the case of Ved Meneres (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court amongst other held that the provisions of section 95, IPC apply even to some cases of physical injury and the provision of section, 95, IPC covered cases of deliberable as well as accidental injury. Mr. In the case of Ved Meneres (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court amongst other held that the provisions of section 95, IPC apply even to some cases of physical injury and the provision of section, 95, IPC covered cases of deliberable as well as accidental injury. Mr. J. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party submits that the offensive words as stated in the complaint is not covered by provision of section 95, IPC inasmuch as these utterances were made by the accused-petitioner before litigants and other public which damaged his reputation and profession of the complainant. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the opposite party and I have perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant in the Court of the Magistrate. I find much force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. An Advocate on his legs, in a Court, to place the case of his client or defend his client, may become charged for the cause of his client which may result in losing temper and in utterance of harsh or unpalatable words towards another fellow Advocate engaged in opposite camp. Such unfortunate utterances or abuse cannot normally cause damage to the reputation as well as professional prospect of an Advocate against whom such abusive words are nurled. Even if, in extreme case, it causes some damage to the professional prospect, appropriate remedy is the suit for damages, not initiation of criminal proceedings. Provisions of section 95, IPC is based in the principles of "deminimis non curat lex". Section 95, IPC is inserted to prevent prose­cution of trivial nature. Whether offensive words or act is negligible or trivial, depends on the relation of the parties, their position and the circumstances they are placed at the material time. In the instant case, both the complainant and the accused-petitioner are Advocates and the alleged offensive words were uttered by the petitioner when both the petitioner and the complainant were on their legs in a criminal proceeding before a Court and the petitioner apparently lost his temper while defending his client, although same was not desirable or expected from a learned member of the Bar. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the alleged offensive utterances are trivial in character and are covered by provision of section 95, IPC. That being so, the impugned proceeding of C.R. Case No.655/82 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur against the petitioner is tantamount to abuse the process of the Court and therefore the impugned proceeding of C.R. Case No. 655/82 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur is hereby quashed.