ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.601/2011 whereby the order passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.0/10 on 9.5.2011 was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.11.2010, non-applicant, Collector was hearing the grievances of public in a “Jansunwai” Meeting. At that time the applicant/complainant made his grievance in respect of non delivery of possession of land by the Tahsildar as he had purchased the land in public auction and deposited the auction price. During hearing the grievance of applicant, the non-applicant in the presence of many officers and people, threw the papers of the applicant and spoke insulting words to the applicant. Applicant is a social worker and has a good reputation in the society therefore he filed a complaint against the non-applicant for the offence under sections 166, 504, 506 and 500 IPC. Learned JMFC after enquiry dismissed the complaint under section 203 CrPC as there is no ground to proceed against the non-applicant. The applicant preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Indore. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.9.2011 dismissed the revision and while affirming the order observe that without the sanction under section 197 CrPC, non-applicant cannot be prosecuted. Being aggrieved with this order the applicant has filed this petition under section 482 CrPC. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is ample evidence that non-applicant has intentionally harmed the reputation of the applicant, thus there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance for an offence under section 500 of IPC. But learned Courts below have considered the probable defence of the non-applicant, which cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. For this purpose he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the matter of Jeffrey J. Diermeir v. State of West Bengal and another, (2010)6 SCC 243 . 4. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that at the stage of taking cognizance it was not required for the Sessions Judge to consider as to whether for prosecution sanction under section 197 CrPC is necessary. Even otherwise also the offence committed by the non-applicant has no nexsus with his official duty, therefore, non-applicant cannot get protection under section 197 CrPC. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that at the stage of taking cognizance it was not required for the Sessions Judge to consider as to whether for prosecution sanction under section 197 CrPC is necessary. Even otherwise also the offence committed by the non-applicant has no nexsus with his official duty, therefore, non-applicant cannot get protection under section 197 CrPC. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of B. S. Sambhu v. T. S. Krishnaswamy, AIR 1983 SC 64 . 5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I have gone though the record. 6. For examination of facts of this case it would be useful to refer the relevant protion of the statement of the applicant recorded under section 200 CrPC which reads as under :- bl ij dysDVj Jh jk?kosUnz flag HkM+d x, vkSj vHknz Hkk”kk dk iz;ksx djrs gq, esjs gkFk ls nLrkost Nhudj iSjksa ds ikl iVd fn, vkSj eq>s gkFk ls ckgj fudyus dk vkns’k djrs gq, dgk fd vkidks dCtk ugha feysxk tc eSaus bldk dkj.k iwNk fd eSaus fof/k vuqlkj lkjh izfØ;k iwjh dh gS rks eq>s dCtk D;ksa ugha feysxk rks dysDVj jk?kosUnz flag us iqu% vi’kCnksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dgk fd rq> ij brus eqdnes yxkmaxk fd dCtk ysuk Hkwy tk,xkA eq>s /kkSal nsrs gq, vkSj èkedh nsrs gq, ckgj tkus dks dgkA tc eSa ckgj fudy jgk Fkk rks ogka ij mifLFkr ehfM;kdehZ esjs ikl vk, vkSj eq>ls iwNus yxs fd D;k ekeyk gS tc eSa mUgsa viuh ihM+k crk jgk Fkk rc dysDVj jk?kosUnz flag iqu% viuh dqlhZ ls mBdj vk, vkSj /kDdk nsrs gq, vkSj muds v/khuLFk Hkh /kDdk nsdj /kedkrs gq, vHknz ,oa viekutud Hkk”kk dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eq>s tulquokbZ dsai ls ckgj dj fn;kA ml le; dsai esa reke x.kekU; ukxfjd iz’kklu ds vf/kdkjh vkSj i=dkj oxZ mifLFkr FksA bl ?kVuk ls eq>s xgjk ekufld vk?kkr yxk vkSj esjk ?kksj vieku gqvkA vkSj eq>s tks tku ls ekjus dh mUgksaus /kedh nh vkSj tsy esa lM+kus dh /kedh nh vkSj my>kus dh /kedh nhA 7. With the aforesaid statement of applicant it is clear that the applicant has not stated the actual words used by the non-applicant. But stated that non-applicant has used some insulting words. In the complaint also the actual words used by the non-applicant are missing. With the aforesaid statement of applicant it is clear that the applicant has not stated the actual words used by the non-applicant. But stated that non-applicant has used some insulting words. In the complaint also the actual words used by the non-applicant are missing. This Court in the case of Rajesh Nandini Singh v. Rakesh Khare, 2008 ILR Note 49 quashed the complaint as the complaint did not contain the actual words alleged to have been constitute defamation by spoken words. 8. From the above referred statement, the case of complainant comes under section 95 of the IPC as the offence is a trivial character. For this purpose, I would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Mrs. Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan, AIR 1966 SC 1773 wherein it was held as under:- “The next question is whether, having regard to the circumstances, the harm caused to the appellant and to her servant Robert was so light that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Section 95 in 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. 9. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court, I have examined the facts of this case. In this case, non-applicant being Collector of the District, hearing the grievances of the public and during that proceedings if the Collector annoyed and threw the papers of the applicant and used some rude words even with the intention to harm the reputation of the applicant, but that is a trivial issue and will not be punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstance, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts below, thus the petition under section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed in limine. R. D. Sonwane for applicant.