petitioners and office bearers of the society on one hand and the respondents on the other hand. The factual matrix has already been adverted hereinabove. True that the respondent is not a party to the proceeding before the said Consumer Commission. If we closely scrutinize the alleged defamatory statement, it would be revealed that the petitioners want to contend that the respondent’s wife is taking advantage of her own wrong and that of her husband. Admittedly her husband (respondent herein) was the Chairman of the society. As such, what has been averred, would be a matter of evidence in the concerned proceeding. It has been alleged that an unauthorized construction of flat (No. 18) was made during the tenure of respondent, who was the Chairman of society. These averments do not per-se indicate that the petitioners have made such statement with a view to malign the respondent’s reputation. Needless to mention that the business of society is run by the elected representatives, who are from among the members thereof. Besides the Chairman, there are office bearers such as, Secretary, Treasurer, etc. It is therefore reiterated that by no stretch of imagination, it could be assumed that the averments are per-se defamatory in nature. The parties to the Consumer Commission’s complaint are yet to go for trial thereof. It also appears that the learned Magistrate overlooked the fact that the alleged averments are made in a written statement and not in a notice. The same indicates the casual manner in passing the order impugned herein.
