T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C. C. No. 3066 of 2003 on the file of the XXIII metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE first respondent herein filed a private complaint for the offences punishable under sections 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal code. The complaint was filed originally as against three accused including the present petitioner as A-3, A-1 and A-2 being the company and its Chief Operating Officer whereas A-3 has been working as Head- finance. After perusing the averments made inter alia in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the Court, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against A-3, the present petitioner alone and directed the process to be issued. The petitioner who received the summons from the Court filed the present petition, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE case of the first respondent/ complainant was in brief that he worked as a legal Officer from July, 2001 to May 2003 in the Corporate Office of M/s. Bharati Mobile limited at Hyderabad. The said company is a public limited company. After having served the said company with devotion and dedication for a couple of years, the complainant came out of the said company without any blemish and jointed M/s. Reliance infocom Services as a matter of better carrier prospect, after tendering resignation to the former company. On due verification of the records and conduct of the complainant, he was discharged from duties on 06-05-2003 by paying him all his terminal benefits without raising any objection or leveling any charge against him. However, on 28-09-2003 the complainant received a notice dated 22-09-2003 signed by the petitioner/a-3 on behalf of the company accusing him inter alia that he had indulged in "illegal logins" in the name of a non-existing and fictitious company. It was further alleged in the notice that the complainant was responsible for bringing a defaulter company into Airtel network with a view to causing loss to them; and that as a part of their devious design, the accused have a spun in the form of a demand notice an improbable story. Issuing notice dated 22-09-2003 would tantamount to publication with an oblique and mala fide motive of tarnishing the complainant s image and criminally intimidating him. Issuing notice dated 22-09-2003 would tantamount to publication with an oblique and mala fide motive of tarnishing the complainant s image and criminally intimidating him. The sum and substance of the said publication is that the complainant is dishonest, corrupt and has not been discharging his duties properly. The said publication of a false and defamatory statement respecting the complainant, expressly/impliedly or inferentially, without lawfully justification or excuse has exposed the complainant to hatred, ridicule and/or contempt, besides causing him to be shunned or avoided with a tendency of injuring him in his office, profession or calling. Besides, the said notice/publication has a tendency to excite against the complainant the adverse opinions or feelings of other persons causing injury to the esteem or regard in which the complainant is held by others. It is also an imputation against the honesty or competence of the complainant, as well as being an effort to criminally intimidate the complainant into doing the act of paying up the alleged amounts of illegal logins, which the complainant is not legally bound to do. ( 4 ) THE contents of the said notice are highly defamatory and malicious being replete with innuendo, pouring out venomous ill will against the complainant and in fact the notice/ publication is devoid of truth and without any substance or evidence whatsoever. The complainant suffered inestimable mental agony and torture on coming to know about the matter, especially the same having circulated to his superior, who in turn as a part of his duty required his personnel department to enquire into the same. In the wake of the said defamatory publication, the complainant is now constrained to offer explanation to his superiors in order to get rid of the cloud of dishonesty cast over him. The complainant has become a laughing stock in the eye of his colleagues and an object of suspicion and ridicule in the eye of his superiors, not to speak of his friends, relatives and other known circle. The complainant has become a laughing stock in the eye of his colleagues and an object of suspicion and ridicule in the eye of his superiors, not to speak of his friends, relatives and other known circle. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is now seeking to quash the said proceedings on the premise that the company floated a scheme called "employee yet customer" whereunder certain incentives were offered to the employees who would get customers and the complainant managed to secure various mobile phone connections on various names including himself, his wife and friends and obtained 40 connections from the company which were also activated and subsequent enquiries revealed that most of the connections that were obtained by the first respondent/complainant were fictitious and were for making monetary gain and for collateral purposes. As the Head-Finance of the company, the petitioner, when it was brought to his notice, caused an enquiry and learnt of all the facts relating to the connections obtained by the first respondent/complainant. When the petitioner contacted the first respondent/complainant he attended the office and met the petitioner on 04-07-2003 and admitted his guilt and said that he would take the responsibility of making the payments of all the outstanding amount of rs. 59,226/ -. When the complainant failed to pay the said amount and was avoiding to meet and contact the company, in good faith and in bona fide conduct the petitioner addressed a letter to the first respondent on 22-09-2003 calling him upon to clear the outstanding amount within three days and, therefore, it is not defamatory and that the case is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the Court. ( 6 ) A copy of the impugned notice dated 22-09-2003 has been annexed to the petition. Admittedly, it has been addressed to the first respondent/complainant and it bears the signature of the petitioner as Head-Finance representing the company. ( 6 ) A copy of the impugned notice dated 22-09-2003 has been annexed to the petition. Admittedly, it has been addressed to the first respondent/complainant and it bears the signature of the petitioner as Head-Finance representing the company. There has been no gainsaying of the same A perusal of the said notice shows that M/s. Green Homes realtors Limited which was brought in as login into the network of the company was a non-existing and fictitious company and from that defaulting company by using legal recourse the petitionercompany had collected the outstanding amounts with a great difficulty and the first respondent/complainant was also one of the members of the team which conducted the exercise for such collection; and that the first respondent being a legal person had colluded with the same defaulter and brought them again into the network with fictitious names and addresses. On conducting the address audit, the company came to know that the persons and the addresses mentioned in the subscriber enrolment forms are wrong and non-existing. Immediately when the first respondent was contacted, he attended office on 04-07-2003 and promised to the petitioner that he would be responsible for the outstanding amounts and would clear the same within a week s time. It is only for realization of that amount of rs. 58,226/- outstanding, the notice in question was issued calling him upon to clear the amount within three days from the date of receipt of that letter. ( 7 ) THE contents of the impugned notice dated 22-09-2003 are per se defamatory or not, is. the question. Admittedly, the said notice was addressed to the first respondent by the petitioner, as can be seen from the address contained on the top of it. In the perception of first respondent/complainant, the notice would tantamount to publication and the sum and substance of the said publication was that the complainant was dishonest, corrupt and had not been discharging his duties properly and it caused an injury to his reputation and it further intimidated him to do an act by paying the alleged outstanding amounts which he was not legally bound to do. Inasmuch as a copy of the notice in question was marked to the complainant s superior with the twin objective of giving it the widest publicity and of causing irreparable and incalculable damage to the complainant s career prospective, it was defamatory. Inasmuch as a copy of the notice in question was marked to the complainant s superior with the twin objective of giving it the widest publicity and of causing irreparable and incalculable damage to the complainant s career prospective, it was defamatory. Apparently, a copy of the impugned notice was marked to one mr. Ravichandran Nagaraj - AVP (Finance) for his information, who admittedly was the senior vice President of M/s. Reliance infocom Services whereat the first respondent was working. According to the petitioner, a copy of the impugned notice was marked to the said Ravinchandran for ensuring service and in good faith and, therefore, was intended as a caution for the good of the person to whom it was conveyed. In the perception of the petitioner, marking of a copy of the impugned notice to Senior Vice President of m/s. Reliance Infocom Services was only for ensuring service and for information to the first respondent and was also intended to serve as a measure of caution and, therefore, cannot be treated as defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC ). ( 8 ) FROM the stance of the petitioner inter alia in his petition, it is obvious that the petitioner seeks to take up the plea that he acted in good faith with bona fide conduct. It is obvious, therefore, that it is not merely a case of issuing notice by the petitioner to the first respondent with a view to calling him upon to clear outstanding amount, nay a case where purposefully a copy thereof has been marked to the superior of the first respondent, regardless of the fact at this stage that it is as a precautionary measure or to ensure service of the notice. Admittedly, the intention behind in sending a copy to the superior of the first respondent is besides ensuring service to serve as a measure of caution. Definitely it is a question of fact to be proved. Even the defence of good faith taken by the petitioner is also a question of fact to be proved. Admittedly, the intention behind in sending a copy to the superior of the first respondent is besides ensuring service to serve as a measure of caution. Definitely it is a question of fact to be proved. Even the defence of good faith taken by the petitioner is also a question of fact to be proved. ( 9 ) TURNING to the question as to whether the impugned notice per se is defamatory or not, the Apex Court in John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan held in para 10 thus,"the only effect of an imputation being persedefamatory is that it would relieve the complainant of the burden to establish that the publication of such imputations has lowered him in the estimation of the right-thinking members of the public. However, even if the imputation is not per se defamatory, that by itself would not go to the advantage of the publisher, for, the complaining person can establish on evidence that the publication has in fact amounted to defamation even in spite of the apparent deficiency. So the appellant cannot contend, at this stage, that he is entitled to discharge on the ground that the imputations in the extracted publication were not per se defamatory. "in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, it is not expedient in the interests of justice to throw away the complaint at the threshold on the ground that it is not per se defamatory. As discussed hereinabove, it is not a mere case of issuing notice to the first respondent by the petitioner but intentionally marked a copy of the same to the superior of the first respondent regardless of the intention behind in such marking of the impugned notice. In the absence of marking of a copy of such notice to the superior or the first respondent, perhaps the situation would have been otherwise. Once it is admitted that a copy of the impugned notice has been marked to the superior of the first respondent, certainly in the view of such superior officer of the first respondent it would create an impression against the first respondent till such time the petitioner is able to prove that the intention in marking a copy thereof is otherwise. ( 10 ) -AS regards the plea of good faith, the conscience of the judicial opinion is in favour of the view that good faith envisaged in exception-9 to Section 499 of the IPC is a question of fact and, therefore, is got to be established by the person who takes up the same as defence. Vide Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab; Sukra Mahto v. Basdeo kumarmahto Chamanlal v. State of Punjab and Sewakram v. R. K-Karanjiya. ( 11 ) IN Chaman La/ scase the Apex Court held that in order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen first the circumstances under which the letter was written or words were uttered; secondly whether there was any malice; thirdly, whether the appellant made any enquiry before he made the allegations; fourthly, whetherthere are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution and finally whetherthere is preponderance of probability that the appellant acted in good faith. ( 12 ) IN Sukra Mahto s case in para 7 the apex Court held that the ingredients of the2. AIR 1966 SC 97 . 3. AIR 1972 SC 1567 . 4. Al R1970 SC 1372. 5. AIR 1981 SC 1514 . Ninth Exception are first that the imputation must be made in good faith; secondly, the imputation must be for protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good and good faith is a question of fact. ( 13 ) IN order to establish good faith and bona fide on the part of the petitioner, the above aspects shall have to be proved by the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN order to establish good faith and bona fide on the part of the petitioner, the above aspects shall have to be proved by the petitioner. In the absence of the allegation that the first respondent colluded with the same defaulter, it may appear on the face of the allegations that so as to protect the interests of the company, the petitioner issued the notice in question but when once collusion has been attributed it takes a different colour till such time it is established that it has been done in good faith and bona fide so as to bring it within the purview of the Exception 9 to Section 499 of the IPC, on the face of the allegations made in the impugned notice inter alia, it cannot reasonably be concluded af this stage that it is sufficient enough to conclude that it is a case of good faith and bona fide on the part of the petitioner. It is appropriate here to mention that the grievance of the first respondent appears to be that when he tendered resignation, on due verification of the records and his conduct he was discharged from duties by accepting the resignation without any demurand, therefore, issuing the present impugned notice is nothing but tarnishing his image in the view of his superior officers and other colleagues. Therefore, it is expedient in the interests of justice to allow the parties to put forth their respective contentions so that the Court below can come to a definite and reasonable conclusion basing upon the evidence adduced on either side. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, the criminal prosecution cannot be scuttled at the threshold and, therefore, the Criminal Petition must fail and is dismissed.