JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.S. Tiwari Advocate, assisted by Sri Bajranjgee Mishra Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 and learned A.G.A.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed which are on record.
3. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.10 1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1997 confirming the order dated 15.4.1997 in case No. 490 of 1995, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Azamgarh rejected the complaint filed by the applicant and passed an order of acquittal under Section 500 I.P.C.
4. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the husband of the applicant was posted as Sayayak Krishi Nirishak at Block Tarwa and the contesting opposite party was working as Vikas Khand Adhikari, Tarwa. A letter was written by the applicant to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh inquiring the reason for non payment of salary of her husband and also making a complaint that her husband has not come home since last four months, though he has written three letters requesting his wife (applicant) to arrange for some: finance so that he can give it to the concerned. officer for releasing his salary. The applicant Smt. Geeta Tiwari had written in that letter, twice, that she had to sell her jewelry and now she is not left with no money to look after herself and her minor children. She had very: clearly enquired as to why the salary of her husband is not being paid and also expressed her doubt whether her husband is telling' truth so that she may be able to take suitable steps. The, District Magistrate, Azamgarh had marked the letter to-the opposite party No. 1 for making inquiry vide order dated. 5,7,1994. The said, letter has been annexed along, with counter affidavit as Arinexure-CA-3. An order was passed, by the Distinct Magistrate, Azamgarh on 5.7.1994 on-the letter itself. In reply to the said letter, the contesting opposite party informed that certain charges are levelled against the applicant's husband and. it is for this reason the Salary is not being paid. Regarding the question as to why her husband is not coming home since last four months he has clearly informed that a respectable lady visits her husband and this information has been given by. a number of persons. It is presumed that the visiting lady is none else but wife of Gyan Prakash Tiwari i.e. applicant herself However, since she herself has expressed doubt about the conduct of her husband, it is better she should make enquiries in the matter so that she may not be faced with any grave and on towards situation. Copses of the letters were also sent to the District Magistrate, Assistant Agriculture Inspector Tarwa and Director of Agriculture, Lucknow This letter sent in reply, was complained, to be defamatory in nature and consequently, a complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. was instituted against the opposite party No. 1 by the applicant This was challenged in this Court' on the ground that the letter was written in his official capacity, as such a prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before any prosecution could commence against the accused opposite party No. 1. An application was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 461 of 1997-Kashi Nath v. The State of U.P. and Ors. This Court had disposed of the application vide, order dated 3.2.1997 directing the applicant to move an application before the Magistrate concerned regarding the question of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which shall be. disposed of expeditiously by a speaking , order and till the disposal of the application, the arrest of the accused under Section 500 I.P.C. in case crime. No. 490 of 1995 was stayed. A copy of this order has been annexed along with counter affidavit as Annexure CA-5.In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 15.4.1997 to the effect that the prosecution could not continue for want of necessary sanction and also that the letter written by the accused will not amount to defamation within the meaning of Section 500 I.P.C. and the applicant was acquitted vide order dated 15.4.1997. This order was challenged by filing Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1997-Geeta Tiwari v. State which was also dismissed on 4.10.1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. This order is impugned in the present application. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 He has submitted that since the sentence provided for an offence under Section 500 I.P.Cs is simple imprisonment for a terra which may extend for a period of two years or fine or with both. The case is a summon case. Definition of summon case is provided in Section 2(w) Cr.P.C which is as under:-
"Summon case means a case relating to an offence and not being a warrant."
5. It is, therefore, argued that it was a summon case and the order dated 15.4.1997 clearly shows that, the applicant is acquitted. In the circumstances, an appeal against the said order was 'maintainable but a revision could not be entertained. Sri Tiwari has emphasized that since the applicant tailed to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. his revision could not be entertained under Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. Second argument advanced by Sri Tiwari is that the complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted not only for want of sanction but also after recording his finding that the letter written by the accused to the complainant (applicant) was only with an intention to give her information, which. she had asked for from the District Magistrate and in No. way, it can constitute a case under Section 500 I.P.C Sri Manish Tiwary has emphatically argued that the learned Magistrate proceeded to decide the application in pursuance to' the direction of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 463 of1997. The order was very specific directing the Magistrate to decide the question of grant of sanction by a speaking order. In the circumstances, no order on merit could be: passed and it will be treated that the order dated 15.4.1997 was only in respect of the question of sanction cannot be said that if is an order of acquittal'. It is therefore, emphasized that the: order dated 15.4.1997 was a revisable order and the learned Sessions Judge committed an illegality while dismissing the criminal revision No. 152 of 1997. While dismissing the revision, a finding was recorded that the letter dated 11/12/1994 was sent by the accused Khand Vikash Adhikari in reply to the letter of the complainant herself, as such it was she who has invited the information, rather than the Khand Vikash Adhikari had tried to malign the reputation either of the complainant or her family. The revisional court had concluded that the letter was written in discharge of official duty, certainly permission, to file complaint was required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is also noteworthy that the inquiry was made by the complainant on account of the reason that the District Magistrate had passed an order directing the accused/opposite party to look into the matter and give an appropriate reply, which was done by the Khand Vikas Adhikari It is thus clear that the letter sent in reply was in compliance to the direction 'of the District: Magistrate and therefore, in discharge of his duty. The Khand Vikas Adhikari was duty bound to give a reply and necessary information on account of the order of the District Magistrate. In the: circumstances, if the courts below were of the view that the act done by the accused was in discharge of his official duty, there is no illegality. Besides the allegation of the complaint do not constitute an offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 499 I.P.C., which defines Defamation as:-
"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 excepted, to defame that person."
6. There are ten exception' given in the Indian Penal Section 499 I.PC. If the facts alleged are. covered within any of the exceptions of Section 499 I.P.C. no offence of Defamation is' made out. The facts of the present case squarely comes within the fold of 3 categories of exception.
Third Exception-Conduct of any person touching any public question- It, is not defamation to express in. good faith -any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Ninth Exception-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception-Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good-It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
7. After going through the entire record and the perusal of the ingredients of Section 499 I PC. the facts of the case would not constitute the offence of 'defamation', I. am of a considered opinion that the alleged letter was firstly written in good faith and only an opinion was disclosed to the applicant, that too in compliance of the direction of the District Magistrate. Assuming that the imputation was made against the applicant's husband, it was in good faith for the protection of the interest of the wife (applicant) who herself had asked for information about her husband as his whereabouts was not known since last four months. The letter was only by way of a caution intended for the good of the person.
8. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the impugned orders suffer from any illegality and it can not be said that it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court or any miscarriage of justice, which calls for interference in exercise of inherent powers. The objections of Sri Tiwari to the effect that' an appeal was maintainable against the order of acquittal also appears to be wet Founded. The applicant had instituted the complaint on 6,1,1995 and is continuing to pursue the complaint, which stands already dismissed in the year 1997. In fact it is the contesting opposite party who has' been subjected to undue ¦ harassment despite the fact he was acquitted on 15.4.1997. The Apex Court, has continuously held that the High Courts should be slow. in reversing the order of acquittal unless there are strong and good ground to hold that the order of acquittal by the trial judge suffers manifestly from gross illegality otherwise it should not be interfered with. The Magistrate while passing the order dated 15.4.1997 has. clearly given a finding that the alleged, letter do not constitute an offence of defamation and he prima facie did not consider it a fit case for summoning the accused to face the trial In the circumstances, the argument of the counsel for the complainant/applicant do not inspire any confidence. It is a case where the view taken by the courts below; cannot be said to be perverse or at any rate which was not reasonably possible. In the circumstances, I do not find that the regional order challenged in this application suffers from any illegality. The application is accordingly, rejected.