JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 22.03.2006 passed by learned Chief Judi. Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Complaint No. 286/2006 whereby cognizance for offence under Section 500, I.P.C. was taken against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has set out the case that a complaint was filed by Satar Khan on 11.08., against him and one other person with the allegations of offence under Section 500, I.P.C. The complainant alleged that his father Alim Khan was a reputed and motbir person of Churu, he remained chairman of the muslims of Churu and with great efforts he also brought about construction of a mosque in Churu. In order to denigrade his reputation in the society, Razak Khan (petitioner) and Mukarab Khan lodged criminal complaint for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 469, I.P.C. After investigation, the police found the case false and FR was filed before the Court in the matter. The Court accepted the negative report filed by the police. The complainant alleged that due to these acts of the petitioner and his ally, his father Alim Khan suffered mental agony due to defamation in the society and, ultimately, he died due to this mental shock. 3. Upon the said complaint, statement of the complainant and other two witnesses Amin and Taju Khan were recorded. Thereafter, vide the impugned order the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu took cognizance of offence against the petitioner. 4. It Is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate committed grave error in proceeding to take cognizance against the petitioner without appreciating the material produced on record in right perspective. It is argued by the learned counsel that order of cognizance is unfair and unjust because the ingredients for making out substantial case of defamation for prosecution are completely absent either in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses. It is argued by the learned counsel that order of cognizance is unfair and unjust because the ingredients for making out substantial case of defamation for prosecution are completely absent either in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is nothing in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded before the Court under Section 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code to reveal defamation as defined in Section 499, I.P.C. According to him, the learned Magistrate has hypothetically constituted offence against the petitioner without there being evidence of the ingredients of the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. It is submitted that the father of the complainant died on 21.12.2002 and cognizance has been taken by the impugned order on 22.03.2006, therefore, it is barred by limitation also and the learned court below has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is 78 years old and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complaint argued that there is sufficient material on record and evidence on the oasis of which it can be said that the petitioner and Mubarak Khan have committed offence under Section 500, I.P.C. with regard to defamation of the reputation of his father. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned order as well as complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.PC. of complainant Satar Khan P.W. 1, Amin Khan, P.W. 2 and Taju Khan, P.W. 3. 7. It is clear from the statement recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. that no specific allegations have been levelled to make out offence of defamation. From the impugned order also, it is not clear how the allegations in the FIR constitute offence under Section 500, I.P.C. Mere filing of the FIR and, upon investigation into the matter, negative report being submitted for acceptance of the Court, in itself, does not constitute offence of defamation unless the complainant or his witnesses, in their statements recorded under Section 200 and 202, Cr.PC., are able to persuade the Court to believe that imputation so caused, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of the person aggrieved. There is clear testimony in the evidence of the complainant as well as his witnesses that the police, having investigated into the allegations in the FIR, filed negative report in the Court on the ground that case is of civil nature which was accepted by the Court. This fact is not defamatory and allegation that false case was instituted would not suffice to make out case of defamation punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. Any proceeding in law by itself does not go to set forth case of defamation, more so, such proceeding cannot be isolated from its results for basing a charge of defamation thereon. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner, in any manner, employed the FIR for the purpose of defaming Alim Khan in the community or acted to bring disrepute to his image. It is also important to mention that the negative report was not filed by the police on the ground that the FIR is false and as such the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and thus reached fatal conclusion which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.03.2006 passed by Chief, Judl. Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Complaint No. 286/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside.Revision allowed. *******