ORDER 1. The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager (Public Relations and Community Service Banking) of State Bank of India, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 2527/2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the State Bank of India (Bank) published a magazine namely “Akanksha” from Bhopal Circle, strictly for internal circulation amongst the employees of the Bank. Being Assistant General Manager (Public Relations), the petitioner was entrusted with the duty to function as Editor of said magazine. Certain other officers assisted him as Assistant Editor, etc. The magazine was published and circulated amongst the staff members. 3. In March 2013 Issue of said magazine, a short story namely, “Charitra” was published. The said story was written by respondent No.2. He sent this story to the Editor along with a letter dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure P-1). In this letter, he certified that the short story “Charitra” is an imaginary creation. It has no relation with any existing or dead person. The petitioner published the said article. He believed that declaration is true and story sent by respondent No.2 is imaginary and it does not have any real connection with any existing character/person. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 was not known to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner received a legal notice on 4.7.2013, which was sent by respondent No.1. In the notice, it is alleged that the said story published in the magazine is directly related to respondent No.1. It has been published with malafide intention to lower down the image of respondent No.1 in the society. The petitioner replied the notice and denied the allegation. He explained that there was no such intention to malign anybody’s image. In view of declaration received by him, he genuinely believed that story is imaginary and it has no relation with any person – live or dead. 5. Respondent No.1 filed criminal complaint for offences under sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guna. The Court below took cognizance of the matter by impugned order dated 4.12.2013. 6. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary ingredients for attracting section 499 IPC are not available. As per the averments of complaint, no case is made out for taking cognizance against the petitioner. The Court below took cognizance of the matter by impugned order dated 4.12.2013. 6. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary ingredients for attracting section 499 IPC are not available. As per the averments of complaint, no case is made out for taking cognizance against the petitioner. The Court below has taken cognizance as a matter of routine and without proper application of mind. During the course of argument, relied on (1977)4 SCC 551 (Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra); (2004)7 SCC 338 (Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others); (2004)13 SCC 324 (Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra); (2009)2 SCC 370 (Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others v. State of Maharashtra); (2011)14 SCC 615 (Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Faridkot v. Durga Ji Traders and others), and (2013)10 SCC 591 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh), to contend that against the order, by which cognizance is taken by the Court below, this petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable. He submits that defence documents can also be seen in certain special circumstances. Lastly, it is submitted that in absence of any mens rea, no cognizance could have been taken. He relied on certain judgments in this regard. 7. Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, heavily relied on (1999)3 SCC 134 (Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others v. Uttam and another). On the strength of this judgment, it is urged that against the order taking cognizance by Court below, a revision would lie under section 397 of CrPC. This petition under section 482 is not tenable. He relied on (2013)10 SCC 591 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another) (supra), and (2014)3 SCC 389 (Vijayander Kumar and others v. State of Rajasthan and another) to submit that defence documents cannot be seen at this stage. 8. The parties confined their submissions to the extent indicated above. 9. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 10. As noticed, Shri Rajnish Sharma has raised objection regarding maintainability of this petition under section 482 CrPC. It is seen that the judgments cited in this regard by Shri Raju Sharma and the judgment of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), were considered by Supreme Court recently in (2013)15 SCC 624 (Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh). 10. As noticed, Shri Rajnish Sharma has raised objection regarding maintainability of this petition under section 482 CrPC. It is seen that the judgments cited in this regard by Shri Raju Sharma and the judgment of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), were considered by Supreme Court recently in (2013)15 SCC 624 (Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh). The apex Court after taking stock of all the relevant judgments on the point opined as under : “(iii) Such an order of a Magistrate deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his power under sections 200 to 204 Code of Criminal Procedure, can always be subject matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.” In view of this authoritative and well considered judgment, it can be safely concluded that the present petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable. Thus, the objection of Shri Rajnish Sharma stands overruled. 11. Before dealing with other aspects, it is apposite to quote section 499 of IPC, which reads as under : “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 expected, to defame that person.....” (Emphasis supplied) A simple reading of this section makes it clear that mere publication of an imputation concerning a person does not itself constitute defamation. A person will not be guilty of this offence unless he intends that the words should harm the person, or unless he knows or has reason to believe that his words would harm the person. See : AIR 1941 Patna 9 (Jainarain Singh v. Emperor). The existence of element of mens rea is necessary for attracting section 499 IPC. In 2014(9) SCALE 690 (Bishan Das v. State of Punjab), the apex Court held that an essential ingredient to attract the penal provision is mens rea of the accused. Although said interpretation was made in relation to section 420 IPC, the element of mens rea is essential for establishing the charges under section 499 IPC also. 12. In the light of aforesaid, allegations in the complaint needs to be examined. Although said interpretation was made in relation to section 420 IPC, the element of mens rea is essential for establishing the charges under section 499 IPC also. 12. In the light of aforesaid, allegations in the complaint needs to be examined. Para 3 of the complaint, in which allegations against the petitioner were made, reads as under: ^^3- ;g fd vkjksih dz-2 vkdka{kk if=dk dk laiknd gksdj mijksDr cSad esa gh ofj"B in ij inLFk gS vkSj vkjksih dz-2 ds }kjk ;g tkurs gq, fd mDr ys[k ls vfHk;ksxh ds eku&lEeku dks gkfu gksxh fQj Hkh vkjksih dz-1 ds lkFk feydj fcuk fdlh nLrkosth lk{; ds fcuk tk¡p fd;s mDr vlR; ys[k vkjksih dz-1 ds dgus ij feyhHkxr dj fcuk fdlh vk/kkjksa ds izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gS tks fd ,d n.Muh; vijk/k gSA** 13. The pivotal question needs consideration is whether on the basis of these averments, the Court below was justified in taking cognizance. This is trite law that taking cognizance in a complaint is a serious matter. The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind [See : Pepsi Foods v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in (1998)5 SCC 749 )]. The apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013)3 SCC 330 , described certain steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking power vested in High Court under section 482 CrPC. The relevant steps are as under : (i) Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 14. If the complaint is tested on the anvil of these steps, it will be clear that there is no averment or material of impeccable quality to arraign the present petitioner. 14. If the complaint is tested on the anvil of these steps, it will be clear that there is no averment or material of impeccable quality to arraign the present petitioner. As per the case of complainant, he is a resident of Guna. The facts and narration in the story may have similarity with the life of complainant. The petitioner is not a resident of Guna. He while sitting at Bhopal cannot have any knowledge about any character of a story. There was no impeccable material/averment to show that the petitioner has knowingly published the said article in order to malign the image of the complainant. At the cost of repetition, in my judgment, the averment/material filed by the complainant is not sufficient to take cognizance against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the certificate/letter dated 6.3.2013 whereby respondent No.2 has certified that the story is imaginary and it has no relation with any person living or dead. As per steps (2) and (3) aforesaid, the material relied upon by accused has ruled out the assertion contained in the charges levelled against the accused. Annexure P-1 is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertion contained in the complaint. The complainant has not chosen to file reply in this matter and did not dispute the genuineness of letter dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure P-1). Thus, as per step three, it is clear that the complainant has not justifiably refuted the material relied upon by the petitioner-accused. 15. Shri Rajnish Sharma relied on (2009)11 SCC 529 (Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited) to bolster his submission that defence documents cannot be seen at this stage. However, it is seen that the Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that in the exceptional circumstances, such documents can be seen. See : (2008)14 SCC 1 (Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar); (2009)1 SCC 516 (R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta); (2012)1 SCC 520 (Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another), and (2013)3 SCC 330 (Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor). In (1988)1 SCC 692 (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre), the apex Court held that while exercising the power under section 482 CrPC, the Court may take into consideration the special facts of a case for examining the validity of the proceedings at a preliminary stage. In (1988)1 SCC 692 (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre), the apex Court held that while exercising the power under section 482 CrPC, the Court may take into consideration the special facts of a case for examining the validity of the proceedings at a preliminary stage. In the light of aforesaid, in my view, the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner mechanically. There was no impeccable averment/material on the strength of which cognizance against the petitioner could have been taken. 16. In view of foregoing analysis, it will be travesty of justice if the complaint proceedings are permitted to be continued against the petitioner. Resultantly, Criminal Complaint No.2527/2013 to the extent it relates to the petitioner, is set aside. 17. Petition is allowed.