JUDGMENT 1. - The complainant-appellant has come up before this Court by way of this leave to appeal against the order dated 15.10.1998 passed by learned ACJM No. 1 (South) Kota in Criminal Case No. 471/93 whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 182 and 500 IPC. As per the complaint the allegation against the respondents are that accused respondent Nos. 1 to 3 namely, Ramesh Chand, Gajraj Singh and Babulal are neighbours of the complainant and civil litigation between the complainant and accused-respondents with regard to the property in question is pending before the Civil Court at Kota. On 2.8.1992, accused-respondent No. 1 Ramesh Chand had loged a report with RS. Gumanpura mentioning therein that the complainant was trying to demolish his house and on the basis of the report a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and 427 IPC was registered. In the said proceedings, accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after giving statement, lodged a complaint before ADM (City) Kota and arrest warrants were issued against the complainant. The police tried to arrest the complainant many times and on 2.4.1993, the accused are alleged to have openly shouted in neighbourhood of the complainant that he will be hand cuffed and shall be produced before the Court. It was submitted that in reality a suit between the complainant and accused-respondent No. 1 was pending in Civil Court wherein, the Commissioner's report dated 15.10.1991 was filed. 2. At the outset, before cognizance can be taken by the court for offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC, the court is to be prima-facie satisfied that on the basis of the material before it, case is made out for taking cognizance against the accused and it must be fully established that ingredients of Section 499 IPC are attracted to the case. Section 499 IPC envisages, as under - " Defamation. 499. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, 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. 499. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, 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. Explanation 1 : It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 : It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3 : An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. 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." 3. From the perusal of the impugned order of the trial Court dated 15.10.1998, it is apparent that since the ingredients of Section 499 IPC were found lacking in the case and since the complainant had failed to lead any satisfactory evidence of independent witnesses from his neighbourhood who had heard any such defamatory utterenace made by the accused in the manner as aforesaid, the trial Court had accordingly dismissed the complaint being not maintainable. 4. As a result of above discussion, leave to appeal against the impugned-order dated 15.10.1998 of ACJM No. 1 (South) Kota being devoid of any merit is accordingly declined.Leave to Appeal Refused. *******