ORDER : 1. The cognizance order dated 12.6.2015 in P.C.R. Case no.87 of 2014 is under challenge in this revision application. By order dated 12.6.2015, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case no.87 of 2014 has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioners. 2. A complaint was filed by the complaint-opposite party no.2 stating therein that they belong to respectable family. He further states that Title Suit No.34 of 2012 was registered before the Subordinate Judge, Pakur for pre-emption and acquisition of property by declaring registered sale deed no.3893 of 2011 as null and void, illegal, unlawful, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. It has been stated that in the plaint of the title suit the accused persons have used the words “stealthily” and “cunningly” on repeated occasion to malign the prestige and reputation of Late Basant Kumar Mishra, father of the complainant. Complainant states that these two words are defamatory in nature. He further states that by using the said words in the plaint, the petitioners have committed an offence coming within the definition of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, they should be punished for an offence under Sections 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After the complaint was filed, inquiry witnesses were examined and thereafter the court below took cognizance of offence under Section 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the accused persons. 4. Challenging the said order, this revision application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the plaint, no offence at all is made out and thus, the court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that mere using of the words “stealthily” and “cunningly” in the plaint of title suit cannot come within the definition of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that criminal case is nothing but a tactic evolved by the complainant to pressurize the petitioners because the petitioners have filed T.S.No.34 of 2012 which is pending for adjudication. He further submits that in the facts of the case since no offence is made out, the cognizance order is liable to be quashed. 6. He further submits that criminal case is nothing but a tactic evolved by the complainant to pressurize the petitioners because the petitioners have filed T.S.No.34 of 2012 which is pending for adjudication. He further submits that in the facts of the case since no offence is made out, the cognizance order is liable to be quashed. 6. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that he, being son of Basant Kumar Mishra, is the aggrieved party and can file the complaint. He further states that the words “stealthily” and “cunningly” have been used to defame his deceased father and the same has harmed reputation of his family and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that his father has thus been termed as a cheater and thief by the accused persons. He further submits that on this fact since imputation do not come within the purview of exception mentioned in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code and this application is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. I have gone through the entire complaint. The complainant states that the words “stealthily” and “cunningly” have been used in repeated occasions in the plaint. He further stated that these two words are defamatory in nature. I have gone through the plaint in the suit which has been marked as Annexure 3 to the petition. Contents of the said plaint is not disputed by both the parties. The plaint has been filed by Bikash Ranjan Mishra, Nibash Ranjan Mishra, Subhas Ranjan Mishra, Priya Ranjan Mishra and Chitta Ranjan Mishra as plaintiffs against Smt. Sunita Devi and Smt. Janak Nandini Devi as defendants praying for the following reliefs:- (a) That it may be declared and adjudicated that the plaintiffs under their preferential right have got the right to purchase the suit land on the same value as earlier sold by registered sale deed no.3893 of 2011 and accordingly, a decree of declaration be passed under the provision of law as already stated above in the plaint. (b) And a decree of declaration be passed declaring the sale deed no.3893 of 201 of Pakur Sub-Registration Office as null and void, illegal, unlawful, inoperative and invalid. (b) And a decree of declaration be passed declaring the sale deed no.3893 of 201 of Pakur Sub-Registration Office as null and void, illegal, unlawful, inoperative and invalid. (c) That a decree of the cost may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. (d) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled may be granted to them. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it has been mentioned as follows: “That in the year of 1972 this Basant Kumar Mishra, stealthily without knowledge of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers sold the said landed property which was purchased by the common ancestor Jai Prasad Mishra from the aforesaid Sarda Bewa @ Dig Wasin by virtue of registered sale deed.” 9. Similarly, in paragraph 15 following has been mentioned:- “That the plaintiffs are the members of joint family comprised of Basant Kumar Mishra, Biman Bihari Mishra and Ban Bihari Mishra and the lands in question purchased stealthily by Basant Kumar Mishra as Manager and Karta of the family in the name of his wife Janak Nandini Devi who was simply a name lender..............” 10. Similarly, in paragraph 18 following has been mentioned:- “That therefore, the sale deed is void, illegal and a decree of declaration is fit to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant 2nd party cunningly stealthily and intentionally suppressing the real facts from the plaintiffs have sold away the interest of the plaintiffs also which they have got in the lands in question and the same being without consideration is illegal, improper, invalid and is fit to be declared as not binding on the plaintiffs.” 11. From perusal of the entire plaint I find that the plaintiffs claim that keeping the plaintiffs in dark, Basant Kumar Mishra sold the joint family property and purchased the properties in the name of his wife. The action of the deceased Basant Kumar Mishra is challenged in the suit. The word “stealthily” means “secretly”. An act done by a person secretly is referred by the said word. It is a case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that intentionally suppressing real fact in a secret manner, the said Basant Kumar Mishra has sold the landed property purchased by the common ancestor. The word used in the plaint is just to explain that this transaction has been done in a secret manner. It is a case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that intentionally suppressing real fact in a secret manner, the said Basant Kumar Mishra has sold the landed property purchased by the common ancestor. The word used in the plaint is just to explain that this transaction has been done in a secret manner. It qualifies the nature of transaction so done by Basant Kuma Mishra. 12. Similarly, cunningly also means “cleverly”. In the plaint the plaintiff asserts that Basant Kumar Mishra cleverly sold the joint family properties. 13. The said two words are used in the plaint by the plaintiffs to suggest the manner in which the transaction was done. This is the main allegation in the plaint against Basant Kumar Mishra. The civil court is yet to be decided the claim of the parties to the civil suit. 14. On the peculiar facts of the case, using a word in the plaint to mention about nature of transaction and how the transaction was made by a party, in my opinion, cannot come within the definition of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed the title suit to protect his interest in the property and while doing so has used the two words in the plaint to explain in what manner the transactions were done. Thus, in my opinion, the cognizance order is bad and is liable to be set aside as no criminal offence is made out from bare perusal of the complaint petition. 15. In view the facts and circumstances of the case and in view the finding made above, the impugned order dated 12.6.2015 is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this revision application stands allowed.