ORDER : 1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C are as follows : “i. Quash Annexure A2 Complaint and further proceedings now pending as S.T no:78/2018 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court II, Thamarassery, and all further proceedings. ii. Pass any appropriate order as deemed just and proper.” 2. Heard Sri.Jikku Seban George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.M.T.Sureshkumar, learned Advocate appearing for contesting respondent No.2 (complainant). 3. The 24 petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 24 respectively among the total 24 accused persons arrayed in the impugned Annexure-2 private criminal complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thamarassery, Kozhikode District, for the alleged offence as per Sec.499, which is punishable under Sec.500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners and the case is now pending as summary trial case S.T.No.78/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thamarassery, Kozhikode. 4. The gist of the allegations raised against the petitioners/accused in Annexure-2 private criminal complaint is that they are 24 out of the 106 signatories of Annexure-1 complaint/petition dated 23.09.2017 submitted by them before the Tahsildar concerned alleging that the 2nd respondent herein, the Secretary of the Panchayath concerned as well as the Taluk Surveyor of the area concerned have in exercise of their respective duties and functions, as the Village Officer, Panchayath Secretary and Taluk Surveyor respectively have indulged in abuse of power, corruption, etc. The only allegation raised by the 2nd respondent in Annexure-A2 private criminal complaint is that the petitioners on account of raising allegations in Annexure-1 petition dated 23.09.2017 submitted by them before the Tahsildar has defamed the 2nd respondent, inasmuch as the allegations are raised therein that she in exercise of the discharge of her duties and functions, has indulged in corruption, abuse of power, etc. and that those allegations are baseless and false, etc. Sec.499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation and the second exception which deals with public conduct of public servants and the eighth exception thereto (dealing with accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person), reads as follows: “499. and that those allegations are baseless and false, etc. Sec.499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation and the second exception which deals with public conduct of public servants and the eighth exception thereto (dealing with accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person), reads as follows: “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, 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. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX Second Exception : Public conduct of public servants It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX Eighth Exception : Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father-A is within this exception.” 5. It is indisputable even in the case of the 2nd respondent, the allegations raised against her in Annexure-1 petition are those in relation to the discharge or purported discharge of the duties and functions by her in her capacity as the Village Officer of the area concerned and further that Annexure-A1 complaint has been submitted by the petitioners and the others through the Tahsildar of the area concerned. So it is also beyond any dispute that even going by the case of the 2nd respondent, the Tahsildar is the administrative superior of a person like the petitioner, who is working in the rank of the Village Officer. So it is also beyond any dispute that even going by the case of the 2nd respondent, the Tahsildar is the administrative superior of a person like the petitioner, who is working in the rank of the Village Officer. On account of the submission of such a complaint/petition raising allegations against the incumbent Village Officer by filing a petition in the nature of Annexure-1, it cannot be said that the signatories of the said petition including the petitioners have not acted in good faith and that the allegations are made falsely or that the said allegations have been made maliciously, etc. Those are all matters to be looked into by the Tahsildar in exercise of his powers as the superior or by any other superior authority to whom the matter in Annexure-1 petition have been recorded by the Tahsildar, for consideration, going by the hierarchy of the officials in the administrative realm, merely because citizens like the petitioners raise a complaint against the incumbent Village Officer like the 2nd respondent, will not leave to the situation, whereby they should be prosecuted for the offence of defamation as per Sec.499 of the IPC. Submission of such a complaint in the nature of Annexure-1 by the petitioners to the Tahsildar, who is the Administrative Superior of the 2nd respondent-Village Officer would certainly be protected by eighth exception of Sec.499 of the IPC, which deals with accusation preferred in good faith to authorised persons concerned and where it clearly explains that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. So also, the second exception to Sec.499 of the IPC specifically envisages that it is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. If protection as in the nature of eighth exception to Sec.499 of the IPC is not afforded, it will lead to a situation whereby the citizens cannot complain of any alleged acts of mal-administration, corruption or abuse of power by government service. If protection as in the nature of eighth exception to Sec.499 of the IPC is not afforded, it will lead to a situation whereby the citizens cannot complain of any alleged acts of mal-administration, corruption or abuse of power by government service. Such a scenario would be against the basic tenants of Rule of Law and accountability of administrators and for prevention of mal-administration, as it is elementary that the government employees are the servants of the people and cannot be said to be masters of the people. Therefore, any government servant is infact and in law, the servants of the citizenry. Though the government servants are conceived as the servants of the people, very often there are very many complaints of errand behaviour by government employees including allegations of mal-administration, corruption, abuse of power, inaction, favouritism, etc. If the citizenry does not even has a power to raise such complaints before the superior authorities as well as before the competent Forums, then it would amount to the situation whereby the government employees should be treated as the masters of the people. On account of these elementary aspects, the Parliament in its wisdom has engrafted specific exception as in the eighth exception as well as in the second exception to Sec.499 of the IPC. Going by the admitted case of the 2nd respondent in Annexure-2 private criminal complaint and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are indeed protected by the 8th exception conceived in Sec.499 of the IPC. If after the administrative superiors through proper and impartial enquiry find that the allegations raised by the petitioners and others in Annexure-1 petition are malicious or made with only malafide motives, etc., then certainly, victims of such malicious allegations can resort to remedies available in law. 6. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has committed vagarious error and grave illegality in having taken cognizance of the offence as regards the alleged involvement of the petitioners in Annexure-2 private criminal complaint. 6. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has committed vagarious error and grave illegality in having taken cognizance of the offence as regards the alleged involvement of the petitioners in Annexure-2 private criminal complaint. Accordingly, it is ordered that the proceedings in the impugned Annexure-2 private criminal complaint including the decision taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thamarassery in having taken cognizance, which led to the pendency of summary trial case S.T.No.78/2018 on the file of the said court and all proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioners/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 7. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thamarassery, who is dealing with S.T.No.78/2018, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.