JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.C.No.21/2005 (C.C.No.251 /2005) pending on the file of the Principal JMFC, Gangavathi. 2. The respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Trial Court on 28.07.2005 alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 500 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and one Sri. Venkataramaiah, Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank, Customer’s Service Section. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said complaint by the order dated 24.10.2009. The complainant approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.2 / 2010 and by the order dated 08.01.2010, the learned Sessions Judge, Koppal has set aside the order dated 24.10.2009 and directed the learned Magistrate to record the sworn statement of the complainant and pass the order on that behalf on that day itself without adjournment. Hence on 10.08.2010, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which reads as follows: “Heard and perused. On perusal of the material: available on the record, I am of the view that the complainant has made out a prima facie case and he has got ample materials to proceed against the accused persons. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Office is directed to register a criminal case against the accused persons in Register No.III for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 420 R/ w. Section 34 of IPC and issue summons to the accused persons, if the complainant complies with Sub-Section 2 to 4 of Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C.” The petitioners have challenged the said order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against them. 3. Heard Sri. Mahabaleshwar Hasinal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the entire materials on record, no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC as there is absolutely no defamatory material made out against the petitioners. Mahabaleshwar Hasinal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the entire materials on record, no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC as there is absolutely no defamatory material made out against the petitioners. The petitioners submit that they being the bank officials have acted in discharge of their official duties and in the course of the performance of the said official duties, a letter was addressed to the respondent stating that his complaint made before the higher authorities was false and that the respondent has misbehaved with the bank managers of the various banks. The contents of the alleged letter is neither per-se defamatory nor imputes any false allegations against the respondent, but it is a statement of fact made on the basis of the enquiry conducted by them. He further submits that there is no element of cheating at all and on perusing the entire materials placed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not at all discuss as to how the offence under Section 500 IPC or 420 IPC is made out and it is a clear abuse of process of law in allowing the private complaint and issuing the process against the petitioners. Hence he submits that the entire proceedings in P.C.No.21/2005 are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioners along with Venkataramaiah, accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.4334/2005 and this Court had quashed the proceedings and thereafter, directed the learned Magistrate for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses and accordingly, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the witnesses and issued process. Under the circumstances, he submits that in view of the averments made in the letter dated 20.10.2003, signed by Venkataramaiah, accused No.1, the complainant has made out a ground for an offence under Section 500 IPC. He submits that the words used in the letter dated 20.10.2003 are per-se defamatory. Under the circumstances, he submits that in view of the averments made in the letter dated 20.10.2003, signed by Venkataramaiah, accused No.1, the complainant has made out a ground for an offence under Section 500 IPC. He submits that the words used in the letter dated 20.10.2003 are per-se defamatory. He further submits that the reply sent to the Counsel for the complainant by the Counsel for the accused/petitioners also contains the words that the complainant is a sinner, which is also per-se defamatory. Hence he submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed, thus continuing the proceedings before the trial Court. 6. On a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it is seen that the complainant had originally filed a complaint on 18.10.2003 before the Chairman of the Canara Bank Head Office stating that the Manager of the Canara Bank i.e., the petitioner No.2 has been unnecessarily creating trouble and has not been performing his duties, which is required by a Manager of a bank. The copy of the said letter was sent by the complainant to the Hon’ble Minister for Finance, Government of India, Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank among others. The accused No.1 Venkataramaiah has given reply dated 20.10.2003 stating that the respondent is in the habit of making false allegations and also misbehaved with the bank managers of various banks. The said letter refers to the complaint of the respondent dated 18.10.2003 regarding the Gangavathi branch in which the petitioner No.2 was the Branch Manager during the relevant period. The respondent alleges that the said letter dated 20.10.2003 is defamatory. It is further seen that a lawyer notice was issued by the complainant dated 31.12.2003 through Sri. K. Ananta Rao, advocate to the 1st accused Venkataramaiah asking for apology and a reply thereto was given by the 1st accused on 16.01.2004 stating that the respondent is in the habit of giving false and frivolous complaints against the bank managers of local banks at Gangavathi stating as follows: “Your client is in the habit of giving false and frivolous complaints against the Bank Managers of the local banks at Gangavathi. He has approached out Gangavathi branch on various occasions, recommending the sanctioning of loans to various persons known to him. He has approached out Gangavathi branch on various occasions, recommending the sanctioning of loans to various persons known to him. When informed that the Branch will be sanctioning the loans only on the merits of each case and as per its procedural norm, he has threatened our Bank Manager with due consequences. He has also attempted to obtain loan documents executed by certain third parties in favour of the Bank and upon the same being refused, he has abused our Branch Manager in filthy language and threatened him. As a consequence, our Branch Manager has also lodged a police complaint on 9.9.2003 against your client. We reliably learn that he has adopted such tactics on other banns also. We hereby call upon you to restrain your client from indulging in such nefarious activities. If he persists in this fashion, the Bank shall be forced to take stern action against your client.” 7. The complainant has thereafter sent another notice dated 31.05.2004 through another advocate by name Sri. V.S. Hiremath and in reply to the said notice, a notice dated 10.06.2004 has been issued by the petitioner No.2 through his counsel Sri. K. R. Deshpande. The said communications are marked as Exs. P3, P4, P5 and P6 before the trial Court. 8. The learned Magistrate has however; not referred to the documents in his impugned order, but has in one sentence stated that the complainant has made out a prima facie case and further that the complainant has got ample materials to proceed against the accused persons without referring to any materials available to the complainant to proceed against the accused persons. The sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate reiterates the contents of the above documents. However, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind as to how the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the accused. So also, how the letter dated 20.10.2003, which is the basis for the private complaint contains defamatory materials and that it has resulted in lowering the prestige of the complainant in the public eye. However, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind as to how the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the accused. So also, how the letter dated 20.10.2003, which is the basis for the private complaint contains defamatory materials and that it has resulted in lowering the prestige of the complainant in the public eye. The order of the learned Magistrate further indicates that no statements of other witnesses have been recorded and therefore, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his-mind to come to the conclusion that the averments made in the complaint, sworn statement and other documents attract the provisions of Section 500 IPC or Section 420 IPC. 9. The trend of the public in hurling false allegations against the persons in power has been increasing. This is one such instance where just because the petitioners have refused to sanction the loan to the complainant and also the persons whom the complainant has recommended, the complainant has filed this complaint before the court. It is relevant to observe that the complainant is a retired person and has no work to do except whiling away his time as per his own averments before the Court. The petitioners are none other than the senior officials of the bank and their post is transferable from place to place. The trend of hurling allegations against such officials without any basis has to be nipped in the bud. 10. Having regard to the materials on record, I have no hesitation to held that the complaint has been filed with malafides and that the complainant has not at all made out any ground to establish the offence under Section 500 or 420 IPC against the petitioners. The letter dated 20.10.2003 is aimed at curbing such tendency of the public and there is nothing defamatory in the said letter. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.251/2005 pending before the Principal JMFC, Gangavathi is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.