ORDER : M.S. Ramesh, J. 1. The petitioner who is an editor, printer and publisher of "Dinakaran" daily had published an article on 28.07.2013 reporting distribution of half eggs in a Noon Meal Scheme extended to the students in the Tribal Schools of Udumalai region instead of whole eggs. Considering the news item, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. 1230 dated 19.10.2013 had granted sanction to the respondent herein to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Section 499 and 500 IPC and accordingly, C.C. No. 6 of 2013 came to be filed before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. Challenging the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mrs. Sneha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is not a single sentence in the said news report published in the daily dated 28.07.2013 which amounts to defamation. The learned counsel further urged that it was a report of an incident that occurred in Tribal Schools at Udumalai. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand opposed stating that the news item is derogatory and the purpose of reporting the same is to embarrass the government and that the petitioner had intentionally made a false, serious and defamatory allegations against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsels. 5. Before analysing the facts and law touching upon the case in hand, it would be relevant to extract the article published in the petitioner's newspaper: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. Section 499 of IPC defines the 'term' defamation whereby when there is a real intention to cause harm or injury to any person in his reputation by his act, words spoken written or scribed. Section 500 of the IPC imposes a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 7. The relevant provision of the Section 499 and 550 (sic 500) are extracted hereunder: "Section 499. Section 500 of the IPC imposes a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 7. The relevant provision of the Section 499 and 550 (sic 500) are extracted hereunder: "Section 499. Defamation: 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, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation or such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person." "Section 500. Punishment for defamation: whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 8. On a simple reading of Section 499 IPC, it can be seen that the essential ingredients for commission of an offence of defamation would be by making a publication or any imputation which is by words either spoken or written or by visible representation and further such imputation must have been made to with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of any person. 9. In the instant case, what has been reported is an incident which is said to have occurred in a remote Tribal School whereby half eggs alone has been distributed in the Noon Meal Scheme to the students. More importantly, it is seen that the present news report which is alleged to be defamatory is based on the statement of the parents of the students, who had complained that their children are being given only half eggs under the Noon Meal Scheme. By reiterating the statement of the parents of the students, it cannot be said that the petitioner's newspaper had incidentally published a news item with a view to cause disreputation to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. 10. It is needless to mention that the freedom to publish about such incident in a newspaper is the prerogative of the press and there is nothing therein to indicate that on such publication of the news item of serving half eggs in one Tribal School in Udumalai, the same will harm the reputation of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Reporting of a factual incident based on statement made by witnesses cannot be termed as a defamatory article. If the arguments of the learned Government Advocate is to be accepted then most of the articles complaining about the discrepancies in various welfare schemes of the Government would have been termed as defamatory and the independence of the media to report such articles would curtail the democratic set up of our country. 11. On a careful reading of the news article, I am of the considered view that an offence of defamation has not been made out in the news article. Neither is there any line, word or words which indicates the intention of the petitioner as real and legitimate to cause harm to the reputation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. As such, the essential ingredients constituted under Section 499 of IPC namely, the intention or knowledge to cause harm thereby to defame the then Chief Minister is conspicuously absent. 12. Since the complainant has not prima- facie established the commission of the offence of defamation in their complaint, this Court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is well within its power to quash the said proceedings. In view of the foregoing reasonings, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No. 6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal and District Sessions Judge, Tiruppur is quashed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.