ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P. C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 821 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore. The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-5 in the C.C. 2. A private complaint has been lodged by the first respondent herein for the offences under Sections 120-B, 500 and 501IPC against the petitioners, alleging that he apart from his wife sustained loss of reputation and also got defamed with the filing of the Original Suit No. 216 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore to pass a decree to desist from committing illegal acts; that the same was filed to bore grudge against the wife of the first respondent for which the root cause was the complaint against the third respondent herein for removal of illegal constructions by violating the original sanctioned plan in B.A. No. 22/2001 depriving the flat owners of their free ingress and egress and coercing trouble; that apart from that, a big pent house in 6th floor was also constructed without permission and approval of municipal authorities which constrained wife of the complainant to issue notice to the builder i.e. third petitioner herein, further move the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2004, that A-1 to A-4, thinking the complaint and his family are responsible for applying a brake to this illegal and unlawful acts, have conspired and hatched a plan to destroy the complainant and his wife name and fame by resorting to filing of false petitions to the police as if the complainant's wife is indulging in brothel business; that the petitioners herein were still bent upon to seek vengeance on the first respondent and his wife and resorted to sending such false petitions to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore. To quash the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, no prima facie case is made out for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC that, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out commission of any criminal offence; that, the present criminal complaint is filed as a counter blast to the suit instituted long ago and therefore, he prayed to quash the impugned order. 4. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that, a prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out and so the complaint need not be quashed, and hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. There cannot be any dispute that, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under this Code. When the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged, then only question of quashing the complaint would arise. It is also well settled that, when a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, it is the statutory duty of police to conduct investigation, and the same cannot be curtailed. 6. Section 120-B IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy are as follows: (a) Two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act; (b) The act agreed must be (i) an illegal act, or, (ii) an act which is not illegal but is done by illegal means (c) If the agreement is not to commit an offence then some act besides the agreement is- (i) by one or more parties to such agreement. (ii) in pursuance of the agreement. 7. Section 500 IPC deals with punishment for defamation. 'Defamation' is defined under Section 499 IPC. The offence of defamation, as it is defined in the above Section, consists in the injury offered to reputation, not in any breach of peace or other consequence that may result from it. The essence of the offence consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain, which is felt by person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creatures and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object to such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. No distinction is made between written and spoken defamation. The offence is committed whether the words are spoken, written, printed or engraved, or in whatever manner the words, signs, or visible representations conveying the imputations are expressed. 8. No distinction is made between written and spoken defamation. The offence is committed whether the words are spoken, written, printed or engraved, or in whatever manner the words, signs, or visible representations conveying the imputations are expressed. 8. Intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation or the knowledge or the reasonable belief that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned, is an essential ingredient of the offence of defamation. 9. In order to establish the offence under this Section, it is not necessary to prove that actual harm has been caused, but it is sufficient to show that harm was intended to the complainant's reputation or that he accused person knew or had reason to believe that the imputations made by him would harm his reputation. The offence of defamation is not committed, where no such intention or knowledge exists. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision in G. Narayana Reddy v. P. Sitapathi1 wherein it is held thus: (Para 15) "Judging the present case in the light of those decisions it is clearly a case where the action of the advocate is fully protected. There are absolutely no allegations of private malice or private vengeance and there is nothing to indicate that the advocate, who made the remarks and suggestions in the course of the cross-examination and in the course of the arguments, was making them for any ulterior purpose and not for the purpose of advancing the cause of his client. The learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in rejecting the complaint and not taking it on file." 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed strong reliance on a decision in Mammen Mathew v. M.N. Radhakrishna and another wherein it is held thus: ".. ... Hence, even if the complaint as well as the offending news item could constitute an imputation made with the intention of harming the reputation of the complainant, such complaint would not be maintainable against a person like the first accused who had no role either in the making or in the publishing of the imputation." 12. ... Hence, even if the complaint as well as the offending news item could constitute an imputation made with the intention of harming the reputation of the complainant, such complaint would not be maintainable against a person like the first accused who had no role either in the making or in the publishing of the imputation." 12. In the case on hand, it is alleged that, the present petitioners conspired together and hatched up a plan to destroy name and fame of the complainant and his wife and his family by resorting to filing false complaint to police as if the complainant's wife is indulging in brothel business. A-1 filed an affidavit stating that, in recent times, the complainant's wife is indulging in the illegal acts doing brothel business in the said flat which is creating nuisance to other residents in the said apartment; that, she is allowing the third parties in the said flat during night times also, who are consuming alcohol and creating nuisance and that the residents are not able to bear such situation and hence the residents have complained the matter to the association, which made the representation to the concerned Superintendent of Police and other subordinate concerned officials, but in vain. It is further alleged that, A-1 and A-2 filed suit with the instigation of A-3 and A-4, and that the imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant and his wife. As the complainant and his wife could not understand English, they got it read through D. Venkata Ramana Reddy, to know the contents and came to know about the alleged defamatory allegations. 13. Admittedly, the suit is not filed by A-3 and A-4. Except stating that at the instigation of A-3 and A-4, A-1 and A-2 filed the suit and that, A-3 and A-4 hatched up conspiracy with A-1 and A-2, there is no allegation against A-3 to A-5 to show that they are prima facie defamatory, and so, there are no grounds to quash the complaint against A-1 and A-2 are concerned. I n so far A-3 to A-5 are concerned, there is no allegation that they made any imputation affecting the reputation of the complainant or his wife. Therefore, the complaint against A-3 to A-5 is liable to be quashed. 14. I n so far A-3 to A-5 are concerned, there is no allegation that they made any imputation affecting the reputation of the complainant or his wife. Therefore, the complaint against A-3 to A-5 is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 821 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore as against the petitioners 3 to 5/A,-3 and A-5 are concerned, and the Criminal Petition is dismissed in so far as petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are concerned.