Judgment :- 1. Seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings relating to the private complaint in C.C.No.2073 of 2011 on the file of the Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai this petition has been filed by the petitioner after invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of this criminal original petition are as under: The respondent herein was the Pastor/Chaplin of Christ Church and the Honorary Secretary of the Select Vestry/Pastorate Committee of Christ Church at Anna Salai, Chennai and all the petitioners herein are the members of the above said committee. 3. That on 15.04.2011, the petitioners herein being the members of the Pastorate Committee have passed a resolution removing the respondent from the post of Pastor of Christ Church and other concomitant offices held by him and also resolved to initiate civil and criminal proceedings for the recovery of financial losses sustained by the Church and the school on account of his irregularities. 4. According to the respondent the resolution is per se defamatory and hence he has lodged a private complaint on 26.04.2011 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai alleging that the act of the petitioners would come under the purview of the penal provisions of Section 500 IPC and the same has been taken on file by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.2073 of 2011. 5. Questioning the maintainability of the private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC., the petitioners have approached this court to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2073 of 2011. 6. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing the petitioners and Mr.N.D.Bahety learned counsel for the respondent. 7. While advancing his arguments Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to that the complaint filed by the respondent did not disclose any ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. He has also added that the complainant did not state in clear words which portion of the resolution dated 15.04.2011 is defamatory and since the specific imputation is absent in the complaint it is liable to be rejected. He has also argued that the complainant also did not disclose that the petitioners were having mens rea with a criminal intention to defame the respondent. He has also argued that the complainant also did not disclose that the petitioners were having mens rea with a criminal intention to defame the respondent. He would further submit that even according to the respondent the committee consisting of the petitioners had only proposed to initiate civil and criminal activities for the loss incurred by the church, which will not amount that the petitioners have intended to harm the reputation of the respondent. He has also maintained that the resolution dated 15.04.2011 was entered in the minutes of the committee proceedings and it was intimated to the respondent by a private intimation and there is nothing on record to show that the above resolution was published for the public circulation. 8. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments has made reference to Section 499 of IPC. 9. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code deals with defamation. Section 499 defines as to what is defamation. It reads as follows; "Section 499 - Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs 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, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4- No imputation is said to harm a person' s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." 10. It is also very relevant to refer Section 500 of IPC, which is a penal provision enabling punishment for defamation. "Section 500 - Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 11. The offence under this section requires three essential ingredients; 1. An offence under this section has following essentials: I Making or publishing any imputation concering 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. 12. It may be placed on record that except the first exception no other exception detailed in Section 499, I.P.C., contemplates truth as a defence to operate as a valid defence in a criminal case for defamation. 13. In Baba Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 1951 All WR (HC) 257 it is observed that; "To invoke Section 499, I.P.C., it is not sufficient that the accused made an imputation in writing; it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had made the imputation with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the complainant." 14. Mr.N.D.Bahety learned counsel for the respondent while advancing his arguments has drawn the attention of this court to the grounds C,D and F of the petition. Based on the submission made by the Mr.N.D.Bahety learned counsel for the respondent, it is imperative on the part of this court to extract the grounds C,D and F of the petition. "Ground C – It is submitted that the complainant did not state in clear words which portion of the resolution dated 15.04.2011 is defamatory. In the absence of the specific imputation in the complaint, it is liable to be rejected. Ground D – It is further stated that nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the resolution was passed by the accused with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. It is submitted that in the absence of mens rea the offence of defamation is not made out. Ground D – It is further stated that nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the resolution was passed by the accused with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. It is submitted that in the absence of mens rea the offence of defamation is not made out. Ground F– The petitioners submit that the above resolution was entered in the minutes of the Committee proceedings and it was intimated to the respondent by a private intimation and there is nothing on record to show that the above resolution was published for the public circulation. In the sworn in statement also the respondent/complainant did not allege that the petitioners have passed the resolution with an intention to harm his reputation nor it was published for the public view." 15. In this connection the learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this court to paragraph No.5 and 9 of the complaint in C.C.No.2073 of 2011 which is sought to be quashed in this petition. He has also argued that the petitioners had addressed a letter dated 15.04.2011 to the respondent and without giving any show cause notice, calling for explanation or otherwise they had removed the respondent from the post of Pastor/Chaplin of Christ Church and they had also falsely made an accusation against the respondent as if he had committed financial irregularity and thereby caused financial loss to the church and school and for which the petitioner would seek to recover from the respondent by instituting legal proceedings. 16. He has also submitted that the resolution letter dated 15.04.2011 was duly publicized, not only by the petitioner collectively issuing of the same but also circulated to all concerned, including the Police Authorities for their Police bandobast in Christ Church, in locking of the premises, office, school, appointment of round-the-clock private security guards, etc. He has also argued that by making such false allegations against the respondent it mislead and misrepresented numerous members of Christ Church. Apart from this he has also submitted that by the conduct of the petitioners, the responder was subjected to immense hardship and it caused damage to his fair name, reputation, and his esteem has been reduced in the eyes of the all concerned. Hence he has urged that the present petition is totally devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Hence he has urged that the present petition is totally devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the term "complaint". It contemplates that; "(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation- A report made by a police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaints and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant" 18. This court on empirical reading of paragraph 5 of the complaint, is of considered opinion that it does not disclose any the ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code to constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. 19. In Section 499 IPC, the term "harm" has been employed. It says, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm. It is therefore thus made clear that to harm the reputation of such person, the words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations or the act of publishing any imputation concerning any person have been done with criminal intention or mens rea. 20. To add another dimension, it may also be relevant to refer Section 95 of IPC. It contemplated the act causing slight harm. It reads as follows; "Section 95 - Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm." 21. In this connection it may be more appropriate to place reliance upon the decision in Mrs.Veeda Menezes vs. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan and another reported in AIR 1966 SC 1773 . In this connection it may be more appropriate to place reliance upon the decision in Mrs.Veeda Menezes vs. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan and another reported in AIR 1966 SC 1773 . In this case the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in paragraph No.3 that; "3......The section applies if the act causes harm or is intended to cause harm or is known to be likely to cause harm, provided the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of such harm." 22. In paragraph No.4 it has been held that; "The expression "harm" has not been defined in the 'Indian Penal Code: in its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt, injury; damage; impairment, moral wrong or evil. There is no warrant for the contention raised that the expression "harm" in s. 95 does not include physical injury. The expression "harm" is used in many sections of the Indian Penal Code. In Ss. 81, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100, 104 and 106 the expression can only mean physical injury. In S. 93 it means an injurious mental reaction. In S. 415 it means injury to a person in body, mind, reputation or property. In S. 469, 126 and 499 harm', it is plain from the context, is to the reputation of the aggrieved party. There is nothing in S. 95 which warrants a restricted meaning which counsel for the appellant contends should be attributed to that word. Section 95 is a general exception, and if that expression has in many other sections dealing with the general exceptions a wide connotation as inclusive of physical injury, there is no reason to suppose that the Legislature intended to use the expression "harm" in S. 95 in a restricted sense. 23. In Paragraph No.5 it is also held that "5....... Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivial character. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done, and other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm. It cannot be judged solely by the measure of physical or other injury the act causes." 24. The disputed resolution dated 15.04.2011 runs as follows; "Resolution Passed at the meeting of the Pastorate Committee held at Christ Church, Mount Road on 15.04.2011 at 8pm IST 1/2011 "The Pastorate Committee has unanimously decided to relieve Rev.Colin L.Raymond from the post of Pastor of Christ Church and other concomitant offices held by him with immediate effect on age consideration as well as for unconstitutional acts of his. The Committee reserves their right to initiate civil and criminal proceedings for recovery of the financial losses sustained by Christ Church and School on account of Rev.Colin's irregularities and for punishment in accordance with the laws of our country" 25. This resolution was apparently communicated to the respondent and it is also manifested that on the same date viz., 15.04.2011 a letter seemed to have been sent to the respondent by the petitioners being the committee members. In the said letter it has been stated that; "In consequence to the decision of the Pastorate Committee you are called upon to handover all the charges held by ypu as a Pastor of Christ Church forthwith to Rev.Dr.J.Samuel Sudhakar the incumbent pastor of Christ Church and also you are directed to handover forthwith the car and other benefits enjoyed by you." 26. For this letter the respondent appears to have written a letter to the petitioners on 19.04.2011. It may not be possible to extract all the contents of the letter herein excepting paragraph Nos.19, 22, 26 and 29. "19. Therefore, my removal as Pastor, akin to the appointment and removal of an Auditor, has to be passed and ratified by the General Body, and till such time, the 1st of you, usurping and taking over charge as the Pastor of Christ Church, would amount to the commissioning of various offences under the Penal Code, some of them being criminal breach of trust, cheating, impersonation, misrepresentation, etc. 22. 22. Lastly, the final grossly defamatory nail, on my coffin, is sought to be put by you, by accusing me of financial irregularities, thereby causing financial loss to the Church and School, and which loss you will seek to recover from me, by instituting legal proceedings, but once again on just a vague and bald accusation, without citing a single instance of, and about it. 26. I am constrained to bring this to your notice because I reliably understand from some of the members of Christ Church, that your intention now is, that on some pretext or the other, not to hold the Annual General Body Meeting of Christ Church, to ensure and assure your continuation in office illegally and unconstitutionally. 29. Furthermore, the 1st of you is unfortunately now, both the Pastor and the Treasurer of Christ Church, and as such with your double signature, or signature in double, you can operate all the bank accounts and monies of Christ Church, all of which are again offences punishable under the Penal Code, amounting to criminal misappropriation, etc." 27. It is also manifested from the records that a legal notice appears to have been sent by the respondent through his lawyer to the petitioners on 26.04.2011. Therefore, the complaint in C.C.No.2073 of 2011 appears to have been filed by the respondent on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 28. In this connection Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 500 IPC has not followed the procedure initiated under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.PC., and if the procedure laid down under the above section were followed then the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, would not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of IPC. 29. Considering the whole edifice of the complaint as well as the submissions made on behalf of both sides and having regard to the relevant provisions particularly Section 2 (d), 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and the proviso to Sections 95, 499 and 500 of IPC and after giving due consideration to the grounds c,d and f of the petition this court is of considered view that the criminal proceedings of the case in C.C.No.2073 of 2011 are liable to be quashed. In the result the petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.