Judgment S.H.S.Abidi, J. 1. This application has been filed by Seema Seehra and her father, K.S. Seehra under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23-12-1986 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking conizance of offences under Secs. 499 and 5(4/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of opposite party No. 2, Narain Murti. 2. Narain Murti filed a complaint under Secs. 499 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against R.P. Singh, Ex-captain and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 wherein he stated that he was an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service and while posted as Circle Officer, Anchal Ranchi, from 1982 to 1985, he filed a complaint against K.S. Seehra under Secs. 182, 193, 420, 511 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, being case No. C-11 60 (a) 84, in which charges had been framed against the accused by the Court at Ranchi. The complainant who was the neighbour of K.S. Seehra and his daughter, refused to withdraw the case filed by him when the two accused approached him for the same. Upon this refusal the two accused threatened the complainant to harm him and malign his character in the eyes of high officials and public in many ways. He was transferred from Ranchi and he joined Revenue Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. Accused No. 1 R.P. Singh, son-in-law of K.S. Seehra, wrote a letter to the Chairman, A.I.C.C. (I) Ex-Servicemen Cell, New Delhi, on 15th May, 1986 containing defamatory statements intending to harm the reputation of the complainant, in that letter it had been falsely stated that the complainant was instrumental in lodging the case of accident with Nandu Police Station on 23-6-1985, though the case was lodged by one injured Ram Jatan Yadav on 23-6-1985 in respect of causing injury by rash driving of Car No. WBA 7849 owned by K.S. Seehra. After investigation in that case a charge-sheet was submitted and the matter was subjudice. After investigation in that case a charge-sheet was submitted and the matter was subjudice. So the submission of charge-sheet was conclusive proof of the fact that the said case was not at all at the instance of the complainant and so the statement of complaint was false and it was made purposely to create impression in the minds of the complainants colleagues and both superior and subordinate staff to the effect that the complainant was a man of such character who can go to such a length as to implicate innocent persons. In that letter it was also said that Seema Seehra, accused No. 3 and sister-in-law of accused No. 1. was expelled from B.A. Examination at Womens College on 24-1-86 at the instance of the complaint. The complainant has got no concern with the management and control of examination and moreover at that time he was posted at Patna. It was said that accused persons with common intention wrote different letters containing false and defamatory statements to harm the reputation of the complainant The said letter from the Ex. Servicemen Cell, New Delhi, was communicated to the complainant by Capt. Indrajit Singh (retired) Convenor Ex. Servicemen Cell B.P.C.C. (I) Ranchi by his letter dated 1-9-86, which was in an open envelop was received by Sri B.P. Jha, A.D.M., Patna, who in turn diverted the same to be delivered to the Revenue Department. As the envelop was open, the letter was read by Shiv Nath Singh and others also. Along with this complaint the letter sent by Sri R.P. Singh was also annexed. 3. Annexure 4-A to the petition here is a copy of the letter which had, been sent by Seema Seehra to the Controller of Examinations, Ranchi University saying that when she was writing answer paper (Economic II) in the B.A. Final Examination at Womens College, Ranchi, the Administrative Officer-in-Charge told the invigilator that cheating was going on in the Hall. While she was busy in writing answers, her answer-sheets were taken away and a chit was picked up from the floor which was lying behind her seat and she was accused of cheating and just a few minutes before it an extra sheet was given to her. She prayed in the application that her examination centre be changed. The second letter annexed with the complaint is dated 15-2-1986 (copy as Annexure 4-B to this petition). She prayed in the application that her examination centre be changed. The second letter annexed with the complaint is dated 15-2-1986 (copy as Annexure 4-B to this petition). In this letter it has been said by K.S. Seehra that he strongly felt that his daughter had been victimised in the B.A. Examination. He also said that the complainant a neighbour, had filed a case against him while he was Circle Officer at Anchal Ranchi and the said case was still going on and though he had been transferred from Ranchi yet he was threatened that he would be entangled in false cases. Though he was present in the factory Usha Martin Industries Ltd. on the date in question at the relevant time, he was involved in a case for which Mandu Police Office had come to make enquiries in respect of an accident case lodged by some Ram Jatan Yadav on 23-6-1985 at 6.03 p.m. He apprehended that this false case had been filed against him at the instance of the complainant. Further his daughter had been victimised at the instance of the complainant who had threatened to harass the accused so he prayed for quick justice and she be allowed to complete her balance three paper on 21st, 22nd and 24th February, 1986. 4. The complainant was examined on S.A. by the court, who supported the version given by him in the complaint and he has said that the letter has been read by others and in estimation of others he has gone down. Shiv Nath Singh, an assistant in the Revenue Department was also examined on behalf of the complainant who stated that when the letter was received it was an open letter which was written to lower down the status of the complainant in the eyes of the public. With this evidence the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners, Seema Seehra and her father. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners is bad in law as from reading the complaint and the materials placed before the Magistrate no case against them is made out and this complaint appears to have been filed in order to harass them and to malign them also. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners is bad in law as from reading the complaint and the materials placed before the Magistrate no case against them is made out and this complaint appears to have been filed in order to harass them and to malign them also. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has said that the Magistrate had applied his mind while taking cognizance under Sections 499 and 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code, that the allegations were derogatory and defamatory and the same had been read by others including one Shiv Nath Singh an assistant of the Revenue Department. 6. As to those contentions of the counsel for the parties, at the time of taking cognizance the court has to see whether sufficient material has been brought on the record for issuing process and if on reading the complaint it is found that the allegations made therein or the statement of witnesses recorded in support of the same on their face value do not make out a case, the order taking cognizance of the offences is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the case of Smt. Nagawa V/s. Veer anna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. -- and at p. 1951 it has been observed thus; (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; In the case of State of Punjab V/s. Devinder Kumar and Ors. -- it has been observed thus: Before concluding we should observe that the High Court committed a serious error in these cases in quashing the criminal proceedings in different Magistrates courts at a premature stage in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 482, Criminal Procedure Code, These are not cases where it can be said that there is no legal evidence at all in support of the prosecution. The prosecution has still to lead its evidence. The prosecution has still to lead its evidence. It is neither expedient nor possible to arrive at a conclusion at this stage on the guilt or innocence of the accused on the material before the Court. While there is no doubt that the onus of proving the case is on the prosecution, it is equally clear that the prosecution should have sufficient opportunity to adduce all available evidence. These were not cases of that exceptional character where continuance of prosecution would have resulted either in waste of public time and money or in grave prejudice to the accused concerned. Later in the case of L.V. Jadhav V/s. Shankarrao Abasahab Pawar and Ors. -- it has been observed thus: The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in proceeding on the basis that the allegations in complaint prima facie constitute an offence under Sec. 4 of the Act and issuing processes to the respondents. The High Court, we cannot refrain from observing, might well have refused to invoke its inherent powers at the very threshold in order to quash the proceedings, for these powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. V/s. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. AIR 1988 SC p. 709 and at 711, para (7) it has been observed thus: The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 7. 7. Thus from these observations, it is clear that on looking to the complaint or evidence produced or material collected during investigation, as the case may be, if on the face there of there is no material to connect a person, accused to the offence, or the ingredients of the offence are not made out, or the features of the case are such that the prosecution has been launched with an oblique motive or to harass a citizen or the chances of conviction are bleak and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue, then the court will exercise its extraordinary inherent power to quash the prosecution. In spite of the fact that evidence is yet to come, the court has to see at the initial stage if the continuance of the proceedings on the facts and material as it is, is an abouse of the process or not. This power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. No hard and fast rules can be laid down and every case is to be considered on its own. 8. Here in this case so far as Seema Seehra is concerned nothing has been said in the complaint against her. It is only in paragraphs 4 and 5 where it has been said that she and her father approached the complainant to withdraw the criminal case to which he refused and so threat was given out to him. It is only in the end of the complaint that it has been said in paragraph 10 that all the accused persons have committed an act of defamation thereby they are liable to be prosecuted. As regards K.S. Seehra accused No. 2 it has been said that he too approached the complainant to withdraw the complaint and on his refusal threat was given to the complainant Murti, The paragraph 8(i) is the narration of the contents of the said letter, said to have been sent by accused No. 1. In the end it has been said that false statements were made by accused persons with a view to create bad impression about the complainant in the mind of others and also to lower down the image and reputation of the complainant. The other letter (Annexure 4-A) was written by the girl herself to the Controller of the Examination in which she had prayed for the change of the centre. The other letter (Annexure 4-A) was written by the girl herself to the Controller of the Examination in which she had prayed for the change of the centre. Annexures 4-A and 4-fi to the petition are the letters by the accused Nos. 3 and 2 respectively to the Controller of Examination for doing justice. Annexure-5 is the statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation. It is only for the circulation of these letters by the accused No. 1 to the Chairman, A.I.C.C. (I) Ex-Serviceman Cell, New Delhi, who in turn sent the said letter to the A.D.M. Patna, and lastly it was communicated to the Revenue Department, that the offence of defamation is said to have been made. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that no offence under Section 499 has been made out as they had made a protest to the authorities concerned and had prayed for changing the centre and doing justice. Section says that: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representation, makes or publishes 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. Exception 9 to Sec. 499 shows that it is not defamation to make any imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. In making any imputation against a person for protection of his right one should not believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of that person. The imputation should be based on good faith. The allegation must be for the protection of ones own right to the authority which is capable of granting relief. The imputation should not be made with ulterior motives. In this case the girl was charged with using unfair means while answering questions at B.A. Pinal Examination so much so that she was caught with a chit and thus she approached the authority concerned for change of centre since she had apprehension that she might be victimized. The imputation should not be made with ulterior motives. In this case the girl was charged with using unfair means while answering questions at B.A. Pinal Examination so much so that she was caught with a chit and thus she approached the authority concerned for change of centre since she had apprehension that she might be victimized. The reason for such apprehension was that there was bad relations between the complainant and accused family and so she might have got genuine apprehension and so she claimed for protection of her rights. Similarly, the father of the girl also made a prayer to the Controller for doing justice to the girl. He also said that his daughter had beau victimized which he genuinely believed to be true. Except these two letters there is nothing on the part of the two accused to connect them with this case. 10 Learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that it was exclusively a matter between these two accused and the authorities for action and not for communication and further unless the girl and her father had passed on the information to the accused No. 1 there could not have been any such letter by the accused No. 1 to the Chairman, AICC (I), Ex-Servicemen Cell, New Delhi and then to the authorities and so these two petitioners had common intention of defaming the complainant. This contention is only an apprehension. There is nothing to show that the accused father and the girl had sent the applications for communicating to various authorities. These applications were for giving protection. Even if these two petitioners had sent the copies of the applications to the accused No. 1, for information, as accused No. 1 is the son-in-law and brother in-law of the two accused petitioner yet they are not reasonable for sending the applications to Ex-Servicemen Cell of AICC and other authorities. This may be the individual act of the accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is not before this Court. Nothing can be said about the merit of the case so far accused No. 1 is concerned. But for the petitioners, Seema Seehra and her father at present there is no evidence to connect them with this case. As such the prosecution of the petitioners appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Accused No. 1 is not before this Court. Nothing can be said about the merit of the case so far accused No. 1 is concerned. But for the petitioners, Seema Seehra and her father at present there is no evidence to connect them with this case. As such the prosecution of the petitioners appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Though this Court sparingly exercise its power under Sec. 482 interfering with the order taking cognizance, yet in appropriate case where it appears that no useful purpose will be served by issuing process, it has to intervene. This is one of such cases. As such this application is allowed and the order of the court below taking cognizance against these petitioners is set aside.