ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 67/2017 {Cr.M.P. No. 936/2017} and Criminal Revision No. 68/2017 {Cr.M.P. No. 942/2017} whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, dismissing the application of the petitioners for registration of complaint case under Section 500, 501 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. 3. Mr. T.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner-Vijay Agrawal is a reputed businessman of District- Durg and also is owner of a Star Group Hotel in the Durg District of Chhattisgarh and also runs a massive catering business in the Indian Railways and due to such accomplishments and establishments, the petitioner enjoys a good reputation and status not only in Durg District but in entire state of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner actively participates in social works and gives donations to several good causes since many years. The petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal is the daughter of petitioner-Vijay Agrawal. She is a well qualified person holding a degree in Master of Business Administration (Entrepreneurship and Leadership) and is running Nirvana Educom which works in education sector and the said institution of the petitioner is also a franchisee partner of reputed Shoka-A Birla Preschool, which is envisioned to be a centre for academic excellence. Similar to her father, she is also actively participates in social welfare activities and thus has a good reputation in the society. 4. Mr. Jha further submits that Ruhi Agrawal was married to the respondent in the year 2007 and since then she was living in her marital home but due to the constant and severe cruelty committed by the parents of the respondent as well as the respondent himself who also assaulted Ruhi Agrawal physically and mentally, subsequently as a last resort, she lodged an FIR dated 07/05/2016 bearing Crime No. 415/2016 against the respondent and his parents at Police Station-Supela, Bhilai under section 498A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the police, in pursuance of the said FIR and enquiry, arrested the respondent as well his parents. 5. 5. The respondent to somehow avenge the said arrest, then presented an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 bearing Case No. 79/2016 for the custody of his daughter who is currently living with her mother Smt. Ruhi Agrawal, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Durg in which the respondent, instead of putting forward his case concerning the subject matter of custody of his daughter, made defamatory and outrageous statements to somehow assasinate the character of the petitioners-Vijay Agrawal and his daughter Ruhi Agrawal which resulted in causing grave mental anguish and pain to the petitioners. The said averments were made with the sole intent to harm and tarnish the image of the petitioners who enjoy a good reputation in the society wherein the respondent had every reason to believe that it will severely harm the reputation of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Jha further submits that the said application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed by the respondent on 05/12/2016 and the notice of the same was received by the petitioner on 13/12/2016 at his residence and at that time, the petitioner as well his friend Mr. Prakash Parihar was present at the residence. The said paragraphs/averments of the notice concerning custody was read out by the petitioner-Vijay Agrawal in the presence of his friend and later by his daughter Smt. Ruhi Agrawal. Disgraceful, defamatory and false claims were made by the respondent against the petitioner and his daughter. The petitioners were taken aback reading such scandalous statement that too in presence of his friend, against themselves and were in shock since such statement was made in a Court proceeding and the above mentioned malicious statements were now part of the court records and were in public domain and a part of public record. The friend of the petitioner-Anil Agrawal subsequently questioned the petitioner as to why he has done such overt acts as alleged. To this, the petitioner-Anil Agrawal vehemently denied such claims and stated to his friend that he has not done any such acts as alleged and just to somehow defame him and to tarnish his reputation, such averments have been made in the application for custody before the concerned court. 7. To this, the petitioner-Anil Agrawal vehemently denied such claims and stated to his friend that he has not done any such acts as alleged and just to somehow defame him and to tarnish his reputation, such averments have been made in the application for custody before the concerned court. 7. Being aggrieved by such act of the respondent, the petitioners then presented a case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Durg (C.G.) under section 500, 501, 469 of IPC for the registration of complaint against the respondent-Nimish Agarwal. The petitioners, in support of their complaint, also deposed their statement along with the deposition of Prakash Singh Parihar. Subsequently the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Distt- Durg (C.G.) vide its order dated 22/03/2017 dismissed the complaint cases of the petitioners observing that, since the matter concerning the custody of the child is pending before the Family Court, Durg, no action was required to be taken at that juncture. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred revision petition being Criminal Revision No. 67/2017 and 68/2017 wherein the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg, vide its order dated 23/06/2017 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and upheld the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, negating the very fact that the disposal of the custody application filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 will only decide and adjudicated upon the custody of the child and not in regard to the guilt of the defamatory averments made by the respondent in his plaint. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Mr. Jha submits that the Courts below have erred in holding that the complaint case filed by the petitioners under section 500, 501, 469 of IPC do not stand good due to the pendency of the custody application filed by the present respondent under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 negating the very basic fact that the said custody case pending before the learned Family Court, Durg will only adjudicate upon the custody of the ward who is the subject matter of the case. The disposal or adjudication of the said case by the learned Family Court in future will in no way be relative or a decisive order concerning the defamation committed by the respondent. The disposal or adjudication of the said case by the learned Family Court in future will in no way be relative or a decisive order concerning the defamation committed by the respondent. The learned courts below failed to appreciate the very fact that the jurisdiction of the Family Court is not of a criminal one and it cannot possibly adjudicate upon a criminal matter concerning section 500, 501 of IPC which is a subject and jurisdictional matter of a criminal court. Hence, the very observation that a pending dispute before a family court would be a bar for a defamation suit itself is arbitrary and flawed. The learned Courts below ought to have taken in consideration the fact that the very ingredients of defamation as mandated by the Indian Penal Code as well as the Hon'ble courts who time and again has mandated the essentialities of defamation specifically lays down that for a defamation case to succeed, it has to be proved that the statement referred to the defamed person. Secondly, it must be shown either one intended to cause harm to the reputation of the person or that he knew that the statement would harm or was likely to harm the reputation of the person. In the present case, the respondent has categorically and very specifically asserted the defamatory content against the petitioners with no proof to back such claims wherein the respondent at all times knew that the mentioning of such malicious statements in a court proceeding which are in public domain and the documents filed therein are public records which will ultimately tarnish the image of the petitioners. The learned Revisional Court observed that, the petitioners have not shown the extent of damage they have incurred or the reputation which they had before the alleged defamation and how such defamation lowered his reputation. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the complaint case was filed before the concerned court by the petitioner and no trial concerning the said complaint case was ever initiated but the said complaint was dismissed on a primary stage itself giving no opportunity to the petitioner to show the extent of damage he incurred which would have been only possible if he was allowed to produce his witnesses. Nonetheless, it is a settled law that in a case of defamation, the actual damage to reputation is not required. Nonetheless, it is a settled law that in a case of defamation, the actual damage to reputation is not required. Mere chance of the reputation of the person being affected is enough for a case of defamation to arise. The definition of harm is dependent on the subjective interpretation of the Court in such cases. 9. Lastly, Mr. Jha submits that the only question that needs to be considered in both these cases is that whether any defamatory pleadings made in any case before the Court amounts to a publication or not? As defamatory pleadings have been taken in the case as referred above, it certainly falls under the category of defamation. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant petitions, it is undisputed that, the respondent married with petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal on 16.01.2007 and that the respondent and the petitioners-Ruhil Agrawal were blessed by a daughter namely Ku. Nirvana Nimish Rai on 12.01.2012. It is also undisputed that for some reason, there was unhappy relationship between Ruhi Agrawal and the respondent since the year 2014. After some time, because of family dispute the family members of both the parties tried to resolve the disputes; but all efforts collapsed. On relevant date 07.05.2016; Ruhi Agrawal lodged an F.I.R. bearing No. 415/2016 dated 07.05.2016. The respondent made an application under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of his daughter Ku. Nirvana before the learned Family Court. In the said proceedings; the learned Family Court issued notices to the respondent namely Ruhi Agrawal. However, after receiving the notices; the petitioners felt aggrieved with the contents of the application and feeling defamed therefore filed a complainant case before the learned CJM, Durg for registration of complaint case under Section 500, 501 of IPC, against the respondent. The said complaints have rightly been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge. It is further submitted by the respondent that any act which was done under accusation preferred in good faith of authorized person is not defamation, the law is self explanatory on this point and is reflected from the eighth exception of Section 499 of IPC, therefore these petitions have no substance and appears to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 11. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto with utmost circumspection. 12. It is an admitted position that the relationship between the respondent and the petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal who is daughter of petitioner-Anil Agrawal are not cordial and the respondent and his family were arrested by the police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the police. The respondent had filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 bearing Case No. 79/2016 for the custody of his daughter before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Durg. 13. On a specific query by this Court, as to in whose custody the minor daughter is, it has been stated that the daughter is with the mother i.e. petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal. 14. Eighth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “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.” 15. It has to be borne in mind that when the relationship of parties are not cordial and that too, when the respondent had to go to jail on account of FIR lodged by the petitioner-wife, the only outcome would be multiplicity of litigation which in the instant case is quite apparent. After lodging of the FIR by the petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal, the respondent-husband had filed an application for custody of the child but the custody of the child has been given to the mother. Even otherwise, the averments made in the petition are before the Court of law and not in a public domain. The act of the respondent falls under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal has received the custody of the girl child, now dragging this litigation further would only make the things worse and for the betterment of parties, it would be appropriate to give this litigation a quietous. The act of the respondent falls under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal has received the custody of the girl child, now dragging this litigation further would only make the things worse and for the betterment of parties, it would be appropriate to give this litigation a quietous. It is not a case where the respondent has made slanderous or defamatory statements/publication in any open platform but the pleadings before a Court which is the subject matter between two persons who happen to be husband and wife, though their relationship may not be cordial. 16. This Court does not find any merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.