K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision was filed by the applicant Mahanand Ranghdale, an Advocate from Seoni, for-quashing the defamation proceedings launched against him under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai wife of Murat Singh Bisen. The non-applicant No. 1 Ku. Kiran alias Tiran had filed a complaint against the non- applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai and her Advocate Mahanand Ranghdale, who is the applicant in this case, under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that in application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai and her minor sons against her husband Murat Singh for maintenance, in Para 9, it was mentioned that the said Murat Singh without the consent of the applicant i. e. Smt. Lumeshwaribai (nonapplicant No. 2) had taken Ku. Kiran alias Tiran daughter of Tek Singh as his second wife and was living with her and also performing conjugal rights with the second wife. The said Kiranalias Tiran is the non-applicant No. 1 in this case. After taking the statements of the witnesses under sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. the trial magistrate registered the case against the non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai and her counsel i. e. the present applicant Mahanand Ranghdale advocate and had issued process against them. ( 2 ) THE present applicant Advocate Mahanand Ranghdale filed the present criminal revision under section 397/401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C. with a prayer to quash the whole proceedings against him. ( 3 ) THE revision petition was admitted and, notices were issued to the non-applicants. It was allowed by Honble Shri Justice B. M. Lal of this High Court on 20. 9. 1990, who is now transferred to Allahabad High Court. But the non-applicant No. 1 Ku. Kiran alias Tiran filed an application for rehearing of the revision petition on the ground that on the date the case was fixed, the name of the counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 did not appear in the cause list and he was not able to address the Court. The Court has, therefore, ordered rehearing of the revision petition. The applicant Mahanand Ranghdale Advocate is represented by Shri S. L. Kochar and the non-applicant No. 1 Ku. The Court has, therefore, ordered rehearing of the revision petition. The applicant Mahanand Ranghdale Advocate is represented by Shri S. L. Kochar and the non-applicant No. 1 Ku. Kiran alias Tiran, who is the aggrieved party, is represented by Shri H. B. Agarwal Advocate. None appears for the non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an advocate by profession. He acted on the instructions of his client, the non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Lumeshwaribai, and pleaded the fact of the second marriage of the husband of Smt. Lumeshwaribai with the non- applicant No. 1 Ku. Kiran alias Tiran, on her instructions only. He had no intention to defame the non-applicant No. 1. He honestly acted on the instructions given to him by his client Smt. Lumeshwaribai. In order to protect the interest of the client only he had mentioned this fact. He has, therefore, not committed any offence under section 500. I. P. C. ( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 is that the applicant is related to the non-applicant No. 2 and the applicant-advocate has deliberately made these allegations against the non-applicant No. 1 and that the fact of her marriage with Murat Singh is completely false. It is only to defame the non-applicant No. 1 that these facts have been mentioned in the application under section 125 Cr. P. c. The submission is that this Court should not have interfered in revision under section 482, Cr. P. c. For this, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh to the effect that after enquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. P. c. For this, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh to the effect that after enquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. ( 6 ) HONBLE B. M. Lal, J. while deciding the case had held as under: therefore, no doubt, a member of the Bar has no absolute privilege under the Exception to Sec-499, I. P. C. and only enjoys to the qualified privilege, but all the same when he drafts a petition at the instance of the client who verifies the contents of the petition and makes a declaration that the statements made in the petition are true to his/her personal knowledge or to the information received and believed by him/her to be true. Under such circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that privilege under Exception to Sec. 499 IPC is only qualified privilege and not an absolute one, the counsel is certainly protected under that until and unless it is proved by cogent evidence that it was done with malice or improper motive by the counsel who made such per se defamatory statement in the petition, then only the counsel will not be entitled to such privileges of Exception 499 IPC. Nothing of that sort has been brought on record. Even there is no spur of who in the complaint case and therefore this court is of the opinion that primafacie, no case is made out against the counsel for prosecuting him under section 500, I. P. C. This being so, the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in issuing process against the applicant The order impugned, therefore, is quashed. ( 7 ) THE counsel acts on the instructions of his client. This case is covered under 8th and 9th Exception to Section 499 I. P. C. although this privilege is not absolute but a qualified one fact in this case there is nothing to hold the applicant guilty. Therefore, it is held that no case under section 500, I. P. C. so far as the present applicant, who is an advocate, is concerned, is made out. The learned trial Magistrate has not considered the effect of 8th and 9th Exception to Section 499, I. P. C. and the privileges given to the counsel appearing for the parties. Therefore, it is held that no case under section 500, I. P. C. so far as the present applicant, who is an advocate, is concerned, is made out. The learned trial Magistrate has not considered the effect of 8th and 9th Exception to Section 499, I. P. C. and the privileges given to the counsel appearing for the parties. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order passed by the trial Magistrate against the applicant is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .