JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in which it has been prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 267/90 be quashed and the order dated September 16, 1991 and August 29, 1990 be quashed. The said petition arises in the following circumstances. 2. The Non-petitioner Mahendra Singh Naruka, who shall hereinafter be described as the complainant, was an employee in M/s. Ram Bagh Palace Hotel, Bhawani Singh. Road, Jaipur (for short, the Hotel). He was an order-taker-cum-bill clerk. Some domestic inquiry is said to have taken place against the complainant in relation to some mis-conduct. I need not go into the question whether or not the complainant committed the misconduct because the complainant has challenged the order of his termination in separate proceedings. After domestic inquiry was held the services of the complainant were terminated and a notice was published in 'Rashtradoot daily' dated January 10, 1990. For the present purpose, it will be necessary to read the relevant part of the said notice and it reads as under " AAPKI SAWA MUKTI JANCH KARA-WAHI DWARA DURCHARAH SINGH SHIDI{ PAYEJANA PAR AUR NIYOGAK DWARA US NIRNAY SA SHAMET HONAE PAR DINANK 28-12-89 SA KAR DE GAY HAI " The complainant filed a complaint against the two petitioners and the Hotel in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the said complaint it was said that the notice amounts to character assassination of the complainant and has been published with a view so that the complainant may not get employment anywhere in any hotel and that is why wide publication was given to the order of his termination in daily Rashradoot dated January 10,1990. The complainant then recites the cause of his absence which ultimately resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and further recorded statements of Dhirendra Parasharn, Mool Narain Sharma and Bancy Singh and under his order dated August 29, 1990 took cognizance of offence under Section 11(00) Indian Penal Code against the two petitioners. 3. 1 have gone through the complaint as well as notice which was published in daily Rashradoot dated January 10,1990. 3. 1 have gone through the complaint as well as notice which was published in daily Rashradoot dated January 10,1990. The relevant part of the notice has already been extracted above and I have also gone through the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code A bare reading of the notice will show that it is nothing but an information to the general public and even to the complaint, who does not appear to have received the information that his services were terminated after domestic inquiry. Mere use of the words DURACHARAN SHINDH PAYE JANE PAR in my opinion does not amount to defamation because the meaning of the said words simply is that the misconduct has been found to be proved. I fail to understand as to how the learned Magistrate could take cognizance for an offence under Section 11 Indian Penal Code. The Registry is directed to let this Court know who was the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate does not appear to have any knowledge of law. He has not cared to go through the provisions of Section 11 Indian Penal Code. 4. Consequently, I allow this Miscellaneous Petition and quash the orders dated August 29, 1990 and September 16, 1991. The proceedings are hereby quashed, and the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.Petition allowed. *******