Judgment Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 28-5-1987 passed in Complaint Case No. 83(C) of 1987 by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that Opposite party No.2 had filed a complaint petition before the said Court against the petitioner and five others making out allegations for having committed the offences under Sec. 500 and 120-A of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint petition the following allegations were made. The complainant (Opposite party No.2) had stated in it that in 1980 election of Bihar Legislative Assembly he was declared elected and was subsequently appointed as Minister for Public Health Engineering Department It has further been alleged that the accused persons including the present petitioner filed a false and connected petition before the Vigilance Department of Government of Bihar making out allegations that the opposite Party-2 had constructed a big house consisting of 32 rooms in his village and for this purpose he had wrongly utilised the funds as well as the articles of Public Health Engineering Department. The Vigilance Department of the Government sent this petition to the Lokayukta, Bihar who deputed a technical officer to the village of the Opposite party No.2 for finding out whether the allegations made in this petition were true or not. When the technical officer visited the house of opposite party No.2. Naturally the local people also collected there and came to know that such allegations were made against opposite party no. 2. Thus opposite party no. 2 lost prestige and fell down in the estimation of the public on the basis of the false allegations made in this petition. However, after completing the investigation Lokayukta found the allegations made against the opposite party no. 2 false. Hence the complaint petition was filed before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate as stated above. 3. On receipt of this complaint petition an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code was held by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria in the course of which he examined three witnesses. He also perused some documents produced before him. 2 false. Hence the complaint petition was filed before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate as stated above. 3. On receipt of this complaint petition an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code was held by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria in the course of which he examined three witnesses. He also perused some documents produced before him. He found that a prima facie case under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code only was made but against the present petitioner and not against the rest. Accordingly, he took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case for disposal to another Judicial Magistrate. This he did by his order dated 23-5-1987 which has been impugned before me. In this petition the petitioner has contended that he is a respectable man and conies out of a respectable family. Opposite party no. 2 had filed the false case against him only to lower his reputation and to cause him mental torture. The case brought against him is false and vexatious. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and a respectable person. He has dedicated himself to the service of the people as a result of which he could be elected as ,a Member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from Jokihat constituency. The complaint petition against him was filed out has political vendetta and is vexatious in nature. There has been a long delay of several months in filing the complaint petition. The impugned order is bad in law and wrong on facts. The trial court had acted without jurisdiction. The case, if at all, should have been filed by the Public Prosecutor. No previous sanction of the State Government has been obtained. On these grounds it has been contended that the impugned order as also the prosecution case against him be quashed. 4. A Supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 11-7-1988. In this supplementary affidavit it has been stated that on the basis of the alleged cause of action for which the opposite party no. 2 had filed the complaint petition, he pad also filed Money Suit No. 19187 against the petitioner in the court of learned Munsif, -Araria claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 . Both the Civil and Criminal Cases are pending in the Civil Courts at Araria in respect of the same alleged cause of action in between the parties. 2 had filed the complaint petition, he pad also filed Money Suit No. 19187 against the petitioner in the court of learned Munsif, -Araria claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 . Both the Civil and Criminal Cases are pending in the Civil Courts at Araria in respect of the same alleged cause of action in between the parties. As such the petitioner has prayed that in the interest of justice the criminal case ought to be stayed. 5. As stated above opposite party no. 2 is the complainant and he had filed a complaint petition before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Araria on the basis of which the cognizance of the offence under Sec. 500 the Indian Penal Code was taken against the present petitioner. In the present application the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23-51987 taking cognizance of the offence against him as also the entire prosecution case. Drawing my at detention to Exception 8 of Sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, Learned counsel for the petitioner has Submitted that even if the allegation of filing the petition by him and others before the Vigilance Department of the Government is accepted as correct, it will not amount, to an offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code in as much as it will come under this exception. The eight exception of Sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows: Eighth Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person: "It is not defamation to prefer in good faith in accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation." It has submitted that the accusation, if any, made by the present petitioner and others before the Vigilance Department against opposite party no. 2 was made in good faith to a person who had lawful authority over the opposite party no. 2 with respect to the subject matter of accusation. On this ground it has been submitted that, if at all, the case against the petitioner is covered by this exception to 499 Indian Penal Code and therefore no offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. 6. 2 with respect to the subject matter of accusation. On this ground it has been submitted that, if at all, the case against the petitioner is covered by this exception to 499 Indian Penal Code and therefore no offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. 6. At this stage I would not like to express any opinion with respect to claim of the petitioner that he had made the imputations against opposite party no. 2 in good faith. This will depend on the evidence to be adduced in the case and also on the facts and circumstances of the case. Any opinion expressed by me at this stage, I am afraid, my influence the decision on this point by the trial court. Since the question of good faith has be determined on the basis of the evidence to be adduced, at this stage, I will not like to express any opinion on this point. Suffice it would be to say that from the complaint petition (Annexure- 1) it would appear that the allegation against opposite party no. 2 was made before Vigilance. Department to the effect that he had got a house consisting of 32 rooms constructed at his village at the cost of more than Rupees 15lakhs in which he had used materials of Public Health Engineering Department belonging to the Government. The other allegation in the complaint petition is that opposite party no. 2 had earned lakhs of rupees in the appointment and transfer of the officers. Accordingly the petitioner and others hag filed a petition before the Vigilance Department of Government of Bihar. It further been stated in the complaint petition It when the technical officer had gone to the village of opposite party no. 2 to hold the enquiry : false allegations made against him came to the knowledge of the local people which resulted in lowering of the prestige of the opposite party no. 2 since on enquiry those allegations were found to be useless and false. It has been submitted by Mr. Aminuddin Ahmad Khan the learned counsel that is not one of these cases in which it can be said that the accusations against opposite party no. 2 were made in good faith. In this connection, it may e mentioned that "good faith" has been defined in sec. It has been submitted by Mr. Aminuddin Ahmad Khan the learned counsel that is not one of these cases in which it can be said that the accusations against opposite party no. 2 were made in good faith. In this connection, it may e mentioned that "good faith" has been defined in sec. 32 of the Indian Penal Code and it runs as follows: Sec. 52 "Good faith". "Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believe without due care and attention." 7. On behalf of the opposite party no. 2 it has been contended that the allegations made against him before the Vigilance Department of the Government were entirely false and on enquiry the same were found to be false by Lokayukta. As such the allegations made by him in the complaint petition (Annexure-1) against the present petitioner and others can not be said to be without any basis and clearly a case under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. It has further been submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had held an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code and only thereafter he was satisfied that a prima facie case under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the present petitioner only. Under this circumstance it has been submitted that there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for-the petitioner inasmuch as it cannot be said that the accusation by the petitioner against opposite party no. 2 were made in good faith. I find force in this contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 8. In this connection on behalf of the petitioner my attention has been drawn to a notification dated 6-6- 1973 issued by the Home (police) Department of Government of Bihar showing that under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the Governor of Bihar had declared that the Head Office at Patna of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar would be deemed to be a police station and will have jurisdiction over the entire State. (1) of Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the Governor of Bihar had declared that the Head Office at Patna of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar would be deemed to be a police station and will have jurisdiction over the entire State. It has been submitted that after coming into force of the new Code no such notification has been issued by the Government of Bihar to the effect that under the corresponding provisions of the present Code also the Head Office at Patna of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar will be treated to be a police station having jurisdiction over the entire state. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to bring on record any such notification issued under the present Code. However, according to the provisions of the General Clauses Act this notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Code 1898 shall be deemed to be issued under the corresponding provisions of the new Code as he been provided by Sec. 8 (1) of General Clauses Act As such I do not find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that opposite party no. 2 had brought Money Suit No. 19187 against the petitioner before Munsif, Araria claiming a compensation of Rs.10,000.00 . It has further been submitted that since both civil and criminal cases are pending in the Civil Court at Araria in respect of the same alleged cause of action between the same parties, in the interest of justice, the criminal case ought to be stayed. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Om Prakash Singhania V/s. Nauratan Mal Dudharia. This was also a petition filed before this court under Sec. 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint case filed against the petitioner under Secs. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioners who were acting as agents of the complainant firms undertaking to sell complainants goods at an agreed price, failed to do so and sold the same at a lower price. It was held that this was a dispute of civil nature and not criminal nature and therefore the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed. It was held that this was a dispute of civil nature and not criminal nature and therefore the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed. The facts of the said case are, however, quite different in paragraph 3 of this judgment it has been observed that in the petition of complaint there is absolutely nothing to show that the Munim Mangi Ram, far less the petitioners, had any intention to cheat the complainant firm from the outset. It was, accordingly, held that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and the complaint case filed against the petitioners was liable to be quashed. In the present case, however, in the complaint case filed against the petitioner and others specific allegations have been made against them that they had falsely alleged that opposite party, no. 2 had illegally earned lakhs of Rupees, and at government cost had got his house worth of Rs. 15 lakhs constructed at his village home and when these allegations came to the knowledge of the Public his reputation has suffered and he has falled in the estimation of the public. From these allegations made in the complaint petition (Annexure-1) it becomes clear that this is not a case which can be said to be a case exclusively of civil nature. Since definite allegation against the petitioner and others has been under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt as will appear from the Supplementary Affidavit Opposite party no. 2 has also filed Money No. 19187 against the petitioner before the court of learned Munsif, Araria claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 . The question that would now arise for consideration would be whether under this situation a criminal case also against the petitioner can file. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance on the case of Kundan Kumar V/s. State of Bihar. 10,000.00 . The question that would now arise for consideration would be whether under this situation a criminal case also against the petitioner can file. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance on the case of Kundan Kumar V/s. State of Bihar. In this case also a prayer was made under Sec. 482 of the Code for quashing of the order taking cognizance of the offence, One of the grounds for making this prayer was that a civil proceeding concerning the matter involved we pending, the pendency of which would bar the initiation of a criminal proceeding before the court I can do no better than to quote paragraph 28 of this judgment which runs as follows: Paragraph 28 "The law is well settled that mere pendency of a civil proceeding concerning the matter involved is not bar to the initiation of criminal proceeding, provided the action complained amounts to a criminal offence, of course, if the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, the court cannot allow the parties to get the dispute settled in a criminal court by a camouflage of a civil dispute as a criminal matter. But where the allegations in the complaint; however, disclosed criminal offence and if they are prima facie true, the dealers cannot escape their liabilities under the Criminal Law merely because a civil suit also has been filed against them in respect of the same matter. When, by his action an accused person incurs both the civil and criminal liabilities the mere fact that his civil liabilities is being enforced is no ground for exemption of his criminal liability." As such I do not find any merit in this, connection of learned counsel for the petitioner. In this very decision a reference has been made to the case of Laxmi Narayan Sah V/s. State of Bihar. In the said case it was held that in view of the fact that the matter was pending before the Civil Court for realisation of the money it was not desirable and proper that the petitioner should also be dragged to the criminal court for the same cause of action and accordingly it was held that the continuance of the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of the court. The facts of the present case are however quite different as pointed out earlier. 11. The facts of the present case are however quite different as pointed out earlier. 11. On behalf of the opposite party no. 2 reliance has been placed on the case of Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna. In this case the scope of the enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code and also the scope of issue of the process under Sec. 204 of the Code were under consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court. It was held that in an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code the accused has got no locus standi and that the scope of this enquiry is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or false hood of the allegations made before the court on the basis of the materials placed before it by the complainant for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for the issue of the process is made out in coming to the conclusion whether the process is to be issued or not some guide lines have been given by the Hon ble Supreme Court to the Magistrate as will appear from this judgment. It has been however, observed as follows: "Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merit with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint if proved would ultimately end conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and. ambit of and inquiry under Sec. 292 which culminates into an order under Sec. 204." In the present case as stated above three witnesses were examined in the enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taking into consideration the evidence of those witnesses as also the documents placed on record in the course of this enquiry and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case against the petitioner was made out for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taking into consideration the evidence of those witnesses as also the documents placed on record in the course of this enquiry and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case against the petitioner was made out for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned here in this connection that in the case of R.P. Kapoor V/s. State of Punjab, the Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that ordinarily the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused must be tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court could be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court had proceeded to categorised some of the cases in which the inherent powers to quash a proceeding can and should be exercised by the High Court. The present case, however, does not fall under any of these categories. Under this circumstance, I think that the contention of the opposite party no. 2 on this point is well founded and must prevail. 12. In this connection a reference may also be made to the case of Nageshwar Rao V/s. State of Bihar and others. Relying on, the case of Nagawwa (supra) it has been held by this court that if the Magistrate on the basis of the evidence adduced comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out and accordingly he takes the cognizance it is not proper for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. In this connection, reliance has also been placed by the opposite party no. 2 on the case of Jaimangal Prasad V/s. State of Bihar. This is a decision by me. In this case a complaint petition was filed before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sinkarahana (Motihari) who held an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code and found a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. Accordingly he took cognizance of the offence. In this case also reliance ha$ been placed on the case of Nagawwa (supra). 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. Accordingly he took cognizance of the offence. In this case also reliance ha$ been placed on the case of Nagawwa (supra). 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had also placed reliance on the case of Gajendra Swaroop Srivastava V/s. Baleshwar Prasad Kesari, m support of the contention that ordinarily the discretion exercised by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence after an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code should not be interfered with. 14. Before concluding, however, I would like briefly refer to some other points raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that there has been a long delay of several months in filing the complaint petition. From perusal of the complaint petition. It would appear that since the complainant (opposite party no. 2) was lying ill at Patna he could not file the complaint petition earlier. It has further been stated it was only when on 22-11-1986 he received the intimation that the Lokayukta had found the allegations made against him baseless that he is filing this application. Under this circumstance, the delay appears to be explained. Moreover, it is a question of evidence to be adduced before the trial court whether this explanation for delay is acceptable or not. Hence, on this ground the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be quashed. 15. The petitioner has further contended that in the instant case the complaint petition should have been filed by the Public Prosecutor. Since this has not been done the trial court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. It has also been contended that no previous sanction of the State Government has been obtained by opposite party no. 2. In this connection, my attention has been drawn to Section 199 of the Code. This Section provides for the procedure to be adopted in cases of the prosecution for defamation. No doubt under Sub-sec. (2) it has been provided that notwithstanding any doing contained in the Code a court of session may take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it upon a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor in the cases in which the allegations made under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (this chapter includes Sec. 500 also) are said to have been committed against a person who, at the time of commission, is a Minister of a State. In the instant case from the complaint petition it does not appear that the allegations made by the present petitioner against opposite party no. 2 were made at a time when opposite party no. 2 was a Minister of the State. The complaint petition (Annexure-1) itself shows that in it the complainant (opposite party no. 2) has not described himself as a Minister of the State Government On the other hand, this complaint petition shows that it was in the year 1980 that opposite party no. 2 was elected as a Member of Bihar Vidhan Sabha and was subsequently appointed as a Minister of the Public Health Engineering Department This complaint petition itself appears to have been filed in the year 1987. Obviously, even if it be accepted for a moment that opposite party no. 2 was elected as a Member of Bihar Vidhan Sabha and was subsequently appointed as a Minister he must have ceased to be a Member of this Vidhan Sabha after 1985 with the close of the period of the said Vidhan Sabha. In the complaint petition (Annexure-1) the period of occurrence has been described as from 1-4-1986 to 22-11-1986. From this also it would appear that this complaint petition was filed after the life of the Vidhan Sabha, to which opposite party no. 2 was elected in the year 1980, was already over. Under this circumstance, I think that the provision of sub Section (2) of Sec. 199 will not be attracted since the alleged offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not said to have been committed against a person who at the time of the commission of the said offence was a Minister of the State. From this it become clear that there is no force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Moreover, from a reading of Sub-sec. (2) it would appear that it is an enabling provision according to which in a given situation the court of session was authorised to take cognizance of an offence upon the complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor even without the case being committed to it As stated above in the present case those conditions are not fulfilled. Hence, there was no occasion for the Public Prosecutor to file any such complaint. Moreover, Sub-sec. Hence, there was no occasion for the Public Prosecutor to file any such complaint. Moreover, Sub-sec. (2) does not say that in the situation mentioned in it is only the Public Prosecutor who can file the complaint petition. It is simply an enabling provision stating that in a given situation the court of session can take cognizance of the offence even on the complaint petition of the Public Prosecutor though the case is not committed to it. Hence, there is hardly any force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. In this connection, my attention had also been drawn to Sub-sec. (4) according to which no complaint under Sub-sec. (2) can be filed by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction of the State Government if it relates to the case of a person who was a Minister of that Government. The provision of this Sub-sec. are also not attracted inasmuch as held above the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) are not attracted under the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, I do not find any force in this contention also. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has, however, drawn my attention to Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 199 which clearly lays down that nothing in this Section shall effect the right of the person against whom the offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed to make complaint in respect that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint In view of Sub-sec. (6) it becomes clear the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) are only enabling in nature and they do not deprive a person even if he falls under the various categories mentioned in Sub-sec. (2) from filing a complaint petition for an offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the regular way before a Magistrate who may take cognizance of the offence on the basis of any such complaint petition. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 appears to be well founded and has to be accepted. From these discussions it appears that there is no force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 appears to be well founded and has to be accepted. From these discussions it appears that there is no force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. From the detailed discussions made above it becomes perfectly clear me that there is no merit in this application which is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this application is dismissed and the order of stay passed by this court on 18-7-1988 stands automatically vacated. Since the case has already become old the trial court is directed to proceed with its trial expeditiously. application dismissed.