Judgment :- The Petitioners have requested to quash the proceedings bearing No.OMA/315/2011 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi by the Respondent No.1 for an offence under Sections 120B, 353, 500, 503 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The Respondent No.1 is working as a Deputy Director Industrial Safety & Health attached to the office of Joint Director, Industrial Safety & Health, Raigad and the Industrial Units in the vicinity of Taloja District comes within the purview of his activities. The Petitioners represent the manufacturers in the area of Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad and they felt that the activities of the Respondent No.1 are to be disturbing to smooth functioning of the Industrial Units in the area and consequently, the Petitioners put up a letter dated 16th October, 2010 to the Director, Industrial Safety & Health, Tardeo, Mumbai -400 034. In the said letter, the grievance put up was, the Respondent No.1 started harassing all the units of M/s. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Limited in Taloja. The Respondent No.1 had asked a letter of appreciation from the Association. A Member of the Association informed that the Respondent No.1 insisted for a letter of appreciation under the signature of President of the Petitioner-Association and that letter should be addressed to the Director of Industrial Safety & Health, Government of Maharashtra. It was not acted upon. The letter also informs that having noticed the meeting details, Respondent No.1 approached the office of M/s. Deepak Fertilizers at 4.30 p.m. on 15th October, 2010 and started inspection harassing M/s. Deepak Fertilizers. The grievance was, this type of approach by a Government Officer will affect the rightful functioning of bonafide Association. "The letter urged the Petitioners would like to take this matter on record and ensure that such acts are not repeated in future." It is a matter of record, since the representation dated 16th October, 2010 was a confidential in its character and further communication was not attended to by the higher icons in the hierarchy, Writ Petition No.10200 of 2011 was moved before a Division Bench of this Court wherein, on 13th December, 2011, the Division Bench directed the Government to decide the representation made by the Association in a time schedule. At that stage, before the Division Bench, present Respondent No.1 was also heard and the statement of the learned AGP that preliminary enquiry has been held by the Respondent No.3 therein was also recorded. A legal notice dated 13th December, 2010 was flashed by the Respondent No.1 to the Association which was again replied by the Association informing that they have no intention to harass or intimidate or to object the Respondent No.1 in discharge of his duties as a public servant. 3. The issuance of process for an offence under Sections 353, 120B, 500, 503 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi on 2nd November, 2011 in the above fact situation warrants consideration. Section 353 provides, whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempting to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code deals with defamation whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signed or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, and reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases excepted, to defame that person. Punishment is inflicted under Section 500 thereof. 4. First exception deals with imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. Second exception informs, public conduct of public servants. Third exception elaborates conduct of any person touching any public question. First exception is taken precisely to indicate it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that imputation should be made or published. The third exception provides it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. 5. Emphasis of Mr. The third exception provides it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. 5. Emphasis of Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 was on the writing of the grievance letter dated 16th October, 2010 which ignored and carved out to the exception in the category of 499(3). However, thereafter prosecuting the matter at a different level including the Division Bench speaks of malafide on the part of the Petitioners as the Association is used as a stooge by the responsible Officer of M/s. Deepak Fertilizers Limited. According to the learned Counsel, this is a private interest litigation initiated by said M/s. Deepak Fertilizers embroiling the Petitioner-Association. The learned Counsel conveys, the provisions of Section 353 would certainly be attracted as by a written letter dated 16th October, 2010, the Respondent No.1 was, being faced with the situation to deter public servant, dissuade him from discharging his normal duties. 6. Without pondering upon the aftermath representation made by the Petitioners to the higher Officer dated 16th October, 2010 and enquiry conducted against the Respondent No.1, the fact remains the authorities noticed prima facie material against the Respondent No.1 while dealing with the Members of the Petitioners-Association. Thus, there is prima facie material that whatever act the Respondent No.1 was expecting with the Association or dealing with them was beyond the scope of his official duties as a public servant. 7. The letter of which a capital is made was, in its spirit a confidential communication as was styled. Even a copy thereof was sought under the Right To Information Act by the Respondent No.1 but the Petitioners requested the authorities not to supply copies of the letter to anybody including the Respondent No.1. This demonstrates restraint on the Petitioners' desire to maintain while dealing with the grievance against the Respondent No.1. They were more keen not to involve personal character and conduct. There could have been several such incidences to give mounting list but the letter in reasonable language informs of the high handed act of the Respondent No.1 and soliciting letter of appreciation visiting the offices of the units for such purposes, even odd hours. They were more keen not to involve personal character and conduct. There could have been several such incidences to give mounting list but the letter in reasonable language informs of the high handed act of the Respondent No.1 and soliciting letter of appreciation visiting the offices of the units for such purposes, even odd hours. Such resentment against a public servant as to his wayward behaviour will remotely attract interference in his duties or tarnishing his image. 8. The act of Respondent No.1 seeking prosecution would not be within the ambit of Sections 353, 500, 503 or 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as complaint as a whole is totally silent to implicate individual office bearers of the Association with their role. If the Association submits its grievance before the higher authority of the Government, it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 was prevented from discharging his legitimate duties. The letter giving cause was not published at any place. The Petitioners had made representation under a defined system and channel provided by law, without encroaching upon Respondent No.1's right and therefore, there could not be a question of causing defamation as Respondent No.1's feels. 9. Survey of facts, demonstrate the prosecution initiated by the Respondent No.1 is more leaning to a persecution and to cause harassment to the Petitioners to ensure that they do not further activate agitation against the Respondent No.1. Consequently, the proceedings against the Petitioners and issuance of process in Case No.OMA/315/2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi is quashed and set aside. 10. Writ Petition allowed with costs.