Judgment :- This Criminal Petition is filed under Section-482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.24257/2010 pending on the file the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore city. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Action for Food Production (AFPRO) is a socio-technical development organization working towards reduction of rural poverty in India since 1966 and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner/accused has issued a show cause notice dated 13.4.2008 to the respondent/accused. The contents of the show cause notice are as under: 3.1 That the complainant is working as Senior Office Superintendent in the Action for Food Production (AFPRO). One of the duties assigned to the complainant was to maintain the complete register of assets of the AFPRO. The said register was examined by the Planning and Programme Committee at its meeting held on 7.11.2007. It was found that GPS Magellan Sportrak unit was missing. Consequently, a memo was issued to the complainant by Mr. Emerson Samuel, Unit Manager on 9.11.2007. 3.2 In the reply dated 15.11.2007, the complainant has stated that the said unit was taken to the filed by Mr. R, Haridas and retained by Mr. C. Vijaykumar and was not returned to the office. Complainant has further stated that while ascertaining the information from Mr. P. Arunchamy, she has understood that the said GPS unit had developed certain technical errors and could not be used. It is also stated that she was informed that the programme staff had requested the then unit manager Dr. Vijay Kumar James to explore the possibility of getting the said device repaired in Chennai and handed over the equipment to the then unit Manager at Coimbatore since the said Unit Manager was going to Chennai directly and had many contacts there. Complainant has further stated that she is not aware of the facts and that information did not reach her till she questioned the staff after receiving the memo, but were under the impression that C. Vijay Kumar had the equipment for official use. Complainant has further stated that she is not aware of the facts and that information did not reach her till she questioned the staff after receiving the memo, but were under the impression that C. Vijay Kumar had the equipment for official use. 3.3 From the complainant’s above reply dated 15.11.2007, it is clear that she did not keep track of the said GPS device and did not ensure that the said GPS device was returned to her after the work in respect of the project for which it had been taken to the project site had been completed in June/July-2007. The complainant did not inform the AFPRO Head Office staff that the GPS device was in possession of the Unit Manager who was resigning from the organization. Further, the complainant did not verify whether the then Unit Manager had returned all the assets in his possession before his exit. At paragraph-7 of the show cause notice, it is mentioned that the complainant did so because of her inappropriate relationship with Dr. James, which is reflected in the various e.mails exchanged between her and Dr. James. 3.4 It is also stated in the show cause notice that the dates and times indicated in the emails exchanged between the complainant and Dr. James show that all such emails were exchanged between them during office hours which were supposed to be devoted to official duties and not for indulging in private fancies. 3.5 It is also mentioned in paragraph-9 of the show cause notice that the complainant has behaved very rudely, insolently and confronted with Mr. Emerson Samuel, the Unit Manager, who is her boss since he took over charge as Unit Manager on 1.10.2007. In the letter dated 15.11.2007 in reply to Mr. Samuel’s memo dated 9.11.2008, complainant has inter alia stated that instead of ascertaining the facts, the way he dealt the matter clearly proves his vindictive nature and ignorance on his part to handle the staff and motivate them for better performance. 3.6 Lastly, it is stated in the show cause notice to give reply in writing and explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. 4. For the above show cause notice, reply was given by the complainant denying paragraphs 2 to 5 as false. 3.6 Lastly, it is stated in the show cause notice to give reply in writing and explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. 4. For the above show cause notice, reply was given by the complainant denying paragraphs 2 to 5 as false. She has also stated in her reply that statements made in paragraphs 6 and 7 are all cooked up story. It is meant to harass her and she had given a complaint regarding sexual harassment and subsequently a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed, in which the Management has given the assurance that no vindictive action will be taken against her. Complainant has also stated in her reply that she reserves her right to proceed as per law against the person who has opened her e.mail id, which is very personal and nobody has any right to interfere in her privacy. It is also stated in the reply that a suitable action will be taken against the concerned at a proper time. It is further stated in the reply that the allegations made in paragraphs 9 to 11 are all false and at no point of time, she was rude to the present Unit Manager. It is further stated that she has been performing her duties and maintaining proper discipline in the office. 5. Based on the above two documents, complainant has presented a complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The contents of the complaint are as under: 5.1 The complainant is working in Action for Food Production (AFPRO) as a Senior Office Superintendent. She was subjected to sexual harassment by one Mr. Cyriac Mathew, Chief Finance Officer of AFPRO. She had lodged a complaint against Mr. Cyriac Mathew for the act of sexual harassment. Despite the complaint, AFPRO did not take any action against Mr. Cyriac Mathew. However great care and interest was shown by the Management of AFPRO in protracting the interest of said Cyriac Mathew. The accused herein had communicated to the complainant that a case of sexual harassment proceedings against Mr. Cyriac Mathew would affect the image and reputation and also embarrass the organization. He assured the complainant that he would take all care and protect the interest of women employees from any harassment. He made the complainant to sign a Memorandum of Understanding wherein Mr. Cyriac Mathew was exonerated of sexual harassment. Cyriac Mathew would affect the image and reputation and also embarrass the organization. He assured the complainant that he would take all care and protect the interest of women employees from any harassment. He made the complainant to sign a Memorandum of Understanding wherein Mr. Cyriac Mathew was exonerated of sexual harassment. The accused has made the complainant to write to the SHCC that she has withdrawn the proceedings against said Cyriac Mathew. Despite the communication from SHCC, the accused made the complainant to stop the prosecution against Mr. Cyriac Mathew. 5.2 Subsequent to making the complainant to subscribe to the said Memorandum of Understanding, the Management of AFPRO became vindictive towards the complainant. Complainant was subjected to harassment on flimsy grounds on regular basis. 5.3 In addition to the harassment and victimization, the accused caused a show cause notice dated 13.4.2008. The said show cause notice was delivered as a open letter by the Unit Manager Mr. Emerson Samuel alongwith a letter of suspension of service of complainant in AFPRO. The said Mr. Emerson Samuel took an acknowledgment of the receipt of the show cause notice and letter of suspension of service of the complainant. The accused is the signatory to the said show cause notice and a letter of suspension. In the said show cause notice, the accused made false accusations against the complainant on her efficiency, integrity and character. The said accusations were made with malafide intention of harming the reputation of the complainant in the organization and in the society and also to affect her marital life. 5.4 The complainant further states that number of allegations that are defamatory were made against her in the said show cause notice. Some of the paragraphs are indecent and immoral which are made with a malafide intention of defaming the complainant. The said paragraphs are based on fabricated documents that has nothing to do with her employment with AFPRO. In the complaint, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the show cause notice are extracted, which reads as under: “6. Furthermore, you did not inform the AFPRO Head Office staff who were present during his exit, Delhi that the GPS device was in the possession of the then Unit Manager who was resigning from the organization. In the complaint, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the show cause notice are extracted, which reads as under: “6. Furthermore, you did not inform the AFPRO Head Office staff who were present during his exit, Delhi that the GPS device was in the possession of the then Unit Manager who was resigning from the organization. You did not verify that the then Unit Manager had returned all the assets that you knew were in his possession were returned to the office before his exit. 7. It appears that you did so deliberately because of your illicit relation with Dr. James which are reflected in the various emails exchanged between you and Dr. James, when he was out of Bangalore, particularly the following emails:- a. Your email dated 11 June 2007, to Dr. James that you would be missing him for one month and that you felt like leaving the organization and that you did not know how you would survive in the organization without him and that it has become a night mare for you. b. Your email dated 12 June 2007 to Dr. James, in which you had inter alia stated, “Hey have bath my dear I get smell here. It is very bad. At-least when you were in India you used to have bath regularly, I think about you wearing the same underwear. It is disgusting.” c. The email dated 19 June 2007 from Dr. James to you in which he has inter-alia, stated that, “Please let me know what you need from here. All kinds of boob covers are there, you want some?”. 5.5 In the complaint, it is stated that the above averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the show cause notice are absolutely false and fabricated and are per se defamatory and are made deliberately with a malafide intention of harming the character and reputation of the complainant. 5.6 The complainant gave proper reply to the show cause notice. Subsequently, the complainant was illegally terminated from her service on false, fabricated the frivolous grounds without conducting eve a semblance of enquiry vide letter bearing NO.ADM/PERS/322 dated 18.6.2008. 5.7 The accused made the said letter public by publishing the same in the Delhi and at Bangalore offices of AFPRO. 5.6 The complainant gave proper reply to the show cause notice. Subsequently, the complainant was illegally terminated from her service on false, fabricated the frivolous grounds without conducting eve a semblance of enquiry vide letter bearing NO.ADM/PERS/322 dated 18.6.2008. 5.7 The accused made the said letter public by publishing the same in the Delhi and at Bangalore offices of AFPRO. In fact the fabricated defamatory contents of the show cause notice were so brazenly communicated to one and all with a malafide intention of humiliating the complainant and make people look down upon her as a woman with easy virtue. The said defamatory statements were brought to the notice of all people at Delhi office and also at Bangalore office and to the people who interact and work with the AFPRO. The complainant came to know about the same through her sister Mrs. Ruby Anthony, who had visited office of AFPRO at Bangalore. Sister of the complainant was shocked to know about the same and had called the complainant and the complainant had explained the facts to her sister and cleared her mind of the accusation leveled by the accused against complainant. 5.8 It is also mentioned in the complaint that by causing the publication and by causing it to be brought to the knowledge of all the staff employed with AFPRO, the accused has committed the offence of defamation and has affected the character and reputation of the complainant and also her family life. 5.9 The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused dated 23.8.2008 demanding as to the source of the alleged e.mails and as to how accused came in possession of the same. The accused gave an untenable reply. In his reply at paragraph-7, it is stated that e.mails were exchanged by the complainant with Dr. James by using the office computer of AFPRO during the office hours and that the said e.mails were downloaded therefrom. Therefore the complainant stated that the accused has committed an offence under section-499 and punishable under section-500 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that when an accusation is preferred in good faith to an authorized person, it is not defamation. Therefore the complainant stated that the accused has committed an offence under section-499 and punishable under section-500 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that when an accusation is preferred in good faith to an authorized person, it is not defamation. He also relied on 8th exception under section-499 of Indian Penal code and it reads as under: “It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. 7. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the office computer has been misused and messages were exchanged by the complainant with Dr. James by using the office computer during office hours and the office authority has downloaded the said e.mails. the averments made in the show cause notice are also based on the E.Mails dated 11.6.2007 and 12.6.2007 which were sent by the complainant and also E.Mail received from Dr. James on 19.6.2007. Based on these e.mails, it is mentioned in paragraph-7 of the show cause notice that she had illicit connection with Dr. James. The complainant was working at Action for Food Production Organization and the show cause notice was issued by the Executive Director of the said organization. In order to maintain discipline and decorum of the office and also to have a say of the complainant, the show cause notice was issued to the complainant. Therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accusation made in the show cause notice falls within the 8th exception of Section-499 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions: 1. Therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accusation made in the show cause notice falls within the 8th exception of Section-499 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions: 1. ( 1999 (3) SCC 134 ) (Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam) wherein it is held as under: “B. Penal Code, 1860 – Ss.500 and 499 Exception 8 – Applicability of Exception 8 to S.499 – Allegation in complaint that the accused persons made a complaint to the Treasury Officer containing false imputation to the effect that the complainant had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer – Magistrate directing the Treasury Officer to hold enquiry and submit a report – Report of the Treasury Officer indicating that a departmental enquiry had been initiated and the complainant was found guilty – Held, in the circumstances Exception 8 to S.499 attracted – No case of defamation made out – Order of issuance of process and the proceeding itself quashed – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Quashing of complaint.” 2. ( 1998 (4) SCC 112 ) (Jawaharlal Darda vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar) wherein at paragraph – 5 it is held as under: “5. It is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly. Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good.” 3. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good.” 3. ( 2010 (5) SCC 600 ) (S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal) wherein it is held as under: “E. Penal Code, 1860 – S. 499 – Defamation – Acts prima facie not amounting to defamation – Complaint of such acts if mala fide – Determination of – Accused in response to survey conducted by new magazine on subject of sexual habits of people residing in big cities, making a statement endorsing in general premarital sex and posing a question as to whether people in Tamil Nadu were not aware of incidence of sex or premarital sex – Statement not directed at any individual or even at a company or association or collection of persons – Such statement, held, did not constitute prima facie case of defamation of Tamil – speaking women – Moreover, complainants not having suffered any specific legal injury by said statement, held, were not “persons aggrieved” within the meaning of S.199(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Hence, complaints filed by them, held, mala fide – More so when most of them were associated with a particular political party – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.199(1).” 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner published the letter at Delhi and Bangalore office and it was delivered to the Unit Manager by way of open letter. Therefore it is contended that the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under section-499 of Indian Penal Code. Since the petitioner has published his statement in the office, it has lowered the reputation of the complainant. He further submits that at this stage, all that the Court has to examine is whether there is a prima facie case or not and the defence of the accused. Whether the act of the accused/petitioner was bonafide or not has to be ascertained at the time of trial, not at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions: 1. Whether the act of the accused/petitioner was bonafide or not has to be ascertained at the time of trial, not at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions: 1. ( 2009 (1) SCC 101 ) (M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu) wherein it is held as under: “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Application for quashing complaint petition filed by respondent against appellant under S.500 IPC dismissed by High Court – Propriety – FIR registered on basis of complaint made by appellant that the respondent had advised one N and one K to damage his nine coconut trees by pouring acid mixed with kerosene on them – However, no charge-sheet was filed within six months, nor extension of time was sought for conducting further investigation – Hence, closure of proceedings ordered by Magistrate – However, said allegations published in various newspapers – Hence, respondent filing private complaint alleging defamation under S.500 IPC – Application by appellant for quashing said complaint dismissed by impugned order – Held, allegations made in the said complaint petition, make out a case for proceeding against the appellant under S.500 IPC as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation – For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of Eighth and ninth Exception appended to S.499 IPC, it would be necessary for the appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good – Well settled that those who plead exception must prove it – Hence, burden of proof that his action was bona fide would, thus, be on the appellant alone – At that stage, however, it would have been premature for High Court to consider the materials placed by the appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities – Question as to whether a totally false complaint has been made as against the respondent or not as he was not even in India prior to the date of occurrence, is required to be gone into by the learned trial Judge – NO interference with impugned order called for – Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499 and 500 – Exceptions – Burden of proof.” 2. ( 2010 (6) SCC 243 (Jeffrey J. Diermeiner vs. State of W.B.) wherein at paragraphs 20 and 21 it is held as under: “20. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code. The section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice. 21. In one of the earlier cases, in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) this Court had summarized some of the categories of cases where the inherent power under section-482 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash Criminal proceedings against the accused. These are: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g., want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 9. The ingredients of the offence of defamation are as under: (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person. (ii) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations. The ingredients of the offence of defamation are as under: (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person. (ii) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations. (iii) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. 10. The essence of the offence of defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain which is felt by a 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 of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. 11. The offence of defamation is subject to the following exceptions: (i) Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. (ii) Public conduct of public servants. (iii) Conduct of any person touching any public question. (iv) Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts. (v) Merits of a case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. (vi) Merits of public performance. (vii) Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another. (viii) Accusation referred in good faith to authorized person. (ix) Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests. (x) Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good. 12. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the complainant is working in Action for Food Production Organization as a Senior Office Superintendent. The Executive Director of the said organization has issued a show cause notice to the complainant wherein he has relied on E.mail dated 11.6.2007 and E.mail dated 12.6.2007 which were sent to Dr. James by the complainant and the E.mail dated 19.6.2007 which was sent by Dr. James to the complainant and the narration made in the e.mail comes within the purview of the inappropriate relationship between Dr. James and the complainant. Relying on these e.mails, the Executive Director of the organization issued a show cause notice to the complainant. Though it is mentioned in the complaint that it was published in the office of Delhi and Bangalore, but no date has been given. The allegations made in the complaint are vague. James and the complainant. Relying on these e.mails, the Executive Director of the organization issued a show cause notice to the complainant. Though it is mentioned in the complaint that it was published in the office of Delhi and Bangalore, but no date has been given. The allegations made in the complaint are vague. No specific overtacts have been made out as to when it has been published and in what form it has been published. The complainant was working under the Executive Director and he had lawful authority over the complainant with respect to the subject matter of the accusation and has issued a show cause notice calling upon her to explain as to why such a misconduct was committed. The reply given by her was a total denial, but she reserved the right to proceed against the Executive Director who has issued the show cause notice. She has been terminated from the service. In my view, imputation made against the complainant in the show cause notice attracts 1st exception and 8th exception of Section-499 of Indian Penal Code. In order to maintain the office discipline and also the decorum, if the Executive Director issues a show cause notice relying on the material collected from him during the enquiry, it cannot be inferred that he acted with malafide intention or with bad faith. Complainant has also given reply to the show cause notice that she will take appropriate legal action. If the judicial process used for improper purpose, to gain advantage unrelated to the intended purpose, it amounts to abuse of process. In this case, the complainant has been terminated. Subsequently, she has instituted criminal proceedings against the accused for the offence under Section-499 of Indian Penal Code. The version of the Management is that based on the e.mails which suggests a fault of alleged to have committed by complainant and therefore the management issued a show cause notice to the complainant. As stated earlier, the date of publication of the show cause notice either in the notice board or in any other form has not been mentioned in the complaint. When the accused issued show cause notice in good faith to the complainant in connection with the misconduct, whose relationship is employer and employee, this act is not included under purview of offence of defamation. When the accused issued show cause notice in good faith to the complainant in connection with the misconduct, whose relationship is employer and employee, this act is not included under purview of offence of defamation. Normally, this Court will exercise power to quash the proceedings sparingly and with circumspection. There is no rigid rule that his Court should not exercise inherent power to quash the proceedings. To do justice, this Court has got discretion. Further, this Court has got very wide power while exercising inherent jurisdiction. In the instant case, the complainant is an employee under the accused, the allegation made against the complainant is that she used the office Internet facility for improper purpose. Applying the principles of maxim ex debito justitiae, this Court can exercise discretion to quash the proceedings to do real justice. Every case is to be decided on its own merits and in lights of the circumstances disclosed. In view of Exception 8 of Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, this is one of the rarest of rare cases where this Court has to exercise the inherent power under section-482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. In my view, this is a vexatious litigation filed with an intention to harass the Executive Director of the company who was performing his official duties. In that view of the matter, this criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is allowed.