JUDGEMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral). Apparently two hyper sensitive individuals, perhaps by misusing the process of Court in one way or the other have been indulging in the luxury, extravagance of mis-conceived and avoidable litigation over a very very trivial issue actually a non-issue which similarly placed other individuals of ordinary prudence and common sense would not have even looked into, bothered or even noticed. The facts in brief are that in a Hindi Newspaper "Punjab Kesari" Ambala Edition, in its issue of 29th July, 2005 an innocuous, totally inconsequential, un important, and very very insignificant news item was carried. Its English translation reads thus- "Ramshehar, 28lh July (Munish) The controversy with respect to the falling of retaining wall on the link road between the villages Behrota Rajputan and Behrota Brahamna adjoining Rameshar is deepening In this contention a delegation of village Behrota adjoining Ramshehar is deepening. In this connection a delegation of village Behrota 3rahamna as well as a women deputation met Sub Divisional Officer (Civil, Nalagarh Ms. Rupali Thakur and handed over a complaint to her. In this complaint the residents of the village Behrota Brtahamna have accused some residents of village Behrota Rajputan, including Amar Singh, Shyam Lal, Ram Gopal and Ram Swaroop, alleging that they have been instrumental in the felling of the retaining wall on the link road between these two villages. In this complaint, it was also mentioned that the link road in question was constructed with the joint efforts of the Gram Panchayat and residents of village Behrota Brahamna on the State land It was also alleged in this complaint that because of the felling of the retaining wall by the aforesaid persons residents of village Behrota Brahamna are facing difficulties in carrying their vegetables and other merchandise” 2. Any person of ordinary prudence and common sense would have .jnored or over looked this trivial, non consequential, insignificant news item but perhaps not the petitioner. Any person of ordinary prudence and common sense would have .jnored or over looked this trivial, non consequential, insignificant news item but perhaps not the petitioner. Amazingly the petitioner suffered from a deep sense of anxiety and perhaps even some degree of misplaced sensitivity and, therefore, treating this news item as very very important, blowing it out of all proportions, he short off a legal notice to the Printer, Publisher and Editor of the Newspaper as well as the Correspondent, Munish Kumar Sharma, respondent No.1 herein In this legal notice usual, run-of-the-mill allegations were made against the respondent to the effect that he was instrumental in defaming the petitioner by publication of the aforesaid news item. 3. Respondent was no less. He perhaps suffered greater anxiety than the petitioner. He perhaps possessed greater sense of over sensitivity than the petitioner. He went a step further. He construed the contents of the legal notice as his own defamation and treating the legal notice. as an article of defamation filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nalagarh. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint. Leaving behind the issue of sensitivities, let us now come to the harsh realities of finding out whether the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is maintainable or not and do the proceedings arising out of this complaint deserve to be quashed by this Court, by invoking this Courts jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The gravemen of the alleged defamatory material respecting the respondent is contained in para 5 of the notice dated 13lh September, 2005 sent by the Advocate for the petitioner. It was addressed to the Newspaper, its Printer, Publisher and Editor as well as the Printing Press, apart from the respondent. Para 5 of the Notice reads thus:- "That the news items under the aforesaid caption is absolutely false, wrong, baseless, concocted, exaggerated, frivolous, hypothetical and far away from the facts and realities. It was addressed to the Newspaper, its Printer, Publisher and Editor as well as the Printing Press, apart from the respondent. Para 5 of the Notice reads thus:- "That the news items under the aforesaid caption is absolutely false, wrong, baseless, concocted, exaggerated, frivolous, hypothetical and far away from the facts and realities. This news item is simply the brain child of addressee No.4 working for you addressee No.1 and 3 as a press reporter for Ramshehar area as mentioned hereinabove. The said news item has been got published by you addressee No.4 knowingly, purposely, with ulterior motives and malafide intentions just to defame and harm the reputation and moral character of my client and to lower down his prestige and dignity, in the eyes and estimation of public at large. The reputation, prestige, dignity and moral character of my client has been lowered down to a greater extent by publishing the aforesaid news item." 6. Actually the mind set of the parties is clearly discernible from their petty-mindedness as well as their narrow approach when they talked of a patent, vertical divide between two castes, couched in the use of a blatant language as it formed a part of the aforesaid notice. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder- "My client is Rajput by caste whereas you addressee No.4 and your co-conspirators are Brahmins by caste. The public of Gram Panchayat Ramshehar is divided on caste and communal lines on account of this news item and whereas the daily newspaper- "Punjab Kesari", Ambala Edition of you addressee No.1 to 3 has been made as an instrument in spreading the defamatory, derogatory and damaging news item as against by client and other persons named in the said news item purposely with ill-motives and calculated game plan on the part of you addressee No.4 along with your co-conspirators." 7. Shorn of all the sensitivity, anxiety and the caste divide, elements, let us fund our whether the aforesaid, attributed by the petitioner to the respondent amounts to any defamation. Shorn of all the sensitivity, anxiety and the caste divide, elements, let us fund our whether the aforesaid, attributed by the petitioner to the respondent amounts to any defamation. My immediate response is that on a bare reading of the aforesaid material forming a part of the notice, I can say without any hesitation that it does not amount to any defamation of the respondent because these are the feelings expressed by the petitioner qua himself, only connecting the respondent to the limited extent of wrongly "maligning the name of the petitioner" in the aforesaid news item. The petitioner could have been more circumspect in the use of the language in the aforesaid notice but, in whatever manner the language is interpreted, it perhaps does not constitute the ingredients of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and .therefore, in my considered opinion would not amount to defaming the respondent. The notice being the only subject matter of the defamation complaint, this by itself is enough to quash the proceedings. Two other considerations also prevail in my taking this view. 8. First and foremost, Section 499 IPC clearly lays down that the offence of defamation is committed only if, in the case of words written there is a publication of the alleged defamatory material. The notice dated 13ln September, 2005 admittedly was not scribed on a Post Card. It was sent through registered cover in a closed envelope by the Advocate of the petitioner, namely, Shri R.L. Kaushal. The notice was addressed to respondent Munish Kumar Sharma along with three other persons against whom the petitioner had grievance that they were instrumental in the publication of the news item in the Newspaper. The notice was meant to be read by the respondent himself. If the respondent did not know or understand English language and had the notice read through one of his friends that would not amount to any publication of the contents of the notice. 9. For constituting an offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 IPC publication of the defamatory material being a sine qua non, it would be a very risky proposition for the Courts to take the view that a legal notice sent by a layer on behalf of the client to a party, notice being sent by a registered cove and it being contained in an envelope, would amount to publication. Various allegations are usually and commonly levelled in legal notices, containing the feelings of the parties sending the notice and alleging various acts of commission and omission on the part of the parties to whom the notices are sent. All such notices are meant to be read by the addressees and the addresses alone because the contents of these notices are not meant for the consumption of any person other than the addressees. The intention of the person sending the notice is not to circulate the contents of the notice for the information of the public at large. The intention is only to make aware the addressee of the notice of the grievances of the person sending the notice so that either remedial action is taken by the addressee or the addressee is informed of the intention of the person sending a notice of the proposed legal action that such person might be initiating. Publication is entirely different than merely sending a notice of such intention, especially through a Counsel of the party sending the notice. 10. Secondly, the notice dated 13th September, 2005 actually stood merged in the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent as well as aforesaid three parties for the recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 1 lac for the so called defamation of the petitioner at the hands of the aforesaid four persons, including the respondent by publication of the aforesaid news item. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complaint in question was filed after the filing of the aforesaid suit. Whether the complaint was a counter blast or not is not something with which I am concerned but the fact remains that the respondent was facing a suit for defamation for the publication of the aforesaid story. The respondent was at liberty to defend the suit. on its merits. It was not open to him to have filed a complaint with respect to the subject matter of the suit. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The aforesaid complaint as well as all the proceedings arising therefrom and order dated 4th February, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) Nalagarh summoning the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint, all are quashed and set aside with all the consequences The petition is disposed of. Cr. MP No. 183 of 2006 12. The aforesaid complaint as well as all the proceedings arising therefrom and order dated 4th February, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) Nalagarh summoning the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint, all are quashed and set aside with all the consequences The petition is disposed of. Cr. MP No. 183 of 2006 12. In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is disposed of. Interim order dated 9th May, 2006 shall stand vacated