Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and the summoning order dated 3.5.2000, copy Annexure P4, passed by the learned Magistrate, summoning the petitioners as accused under Section 500, IPC, in the Criminal complaint, filed by the present respondent, Avtar Singh. 2. Annexure P3 is the copy of the criminal complaint, filed by Avtar Singh, against the present petitioners under Sections 500/34. IPC. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the accused, in connivance with each other, with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant, in the eyes of the public, his friends and relatives, got FIR 72 under Sections 323/325/34, IPC, registered in Police Station, Garhshankar, in which the present accused No. 2, namely Darshan Singh was the complainant, while the present accused Nos. 1 and 3 namely Gurdial Singh and Chanchal Singh, were the witnesses. It was alleged that on inquiry, the allegations, made in the said FIR, were found to be false. It was alleged that thereupon, the present accused No. 2, Darshan Singh, filed a criminal complaint and in the said complaint, all the three accused appeared and made allegations against the present complainant that he had caused injuries to accused No. 2, Darshan Singh. In was alleged that in the said complaint, the present complainant was summoned as accused and ultimately, he was acquitted on 20.1.2000. It was alleged that by making allegations in the aforesaid complaint, the present accused No. 1 lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of others and had committed offence under Sections 500/34 IPC. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate had ordered the summoning of the accused-petitioners as accused for the offence under Section 500 IPC, vide order dated 3.5.2000, copy Annexure P4. 3. In the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused- petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, it was alleged by the accused- petitioners taken thereon, it was alleged by the accused-petitioners that no case for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 500, IPC, was made out and as such, the petitioners had been wrongly summoned as accused. It was alleged that the complaint was filed in good faith and there was no question of committing the offence of defamation. It was alleged that the complaint was filed in good faith and there was no question of committing the offence of defamation. It was further alleged that against the order of acquittal, passed by the learned Magistrate, Gurdial Singh, Petitioner, had already resorted to the remedy available to him and had already filed an Appeal against the acquittal in this Court. 4. Even though the respondent was represented by a counsel, in pursuance of the notice issued to him, neither any reply was filed by the respondent nor anyone had put in appearance on his behalf before me at the time of arguments. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted before me that against the order of acquittal dated 20.1.2000, passed by the learned Magistrate, vide which Avtar Singh, complainant, was acquitted (the order of acquittal was made the basis for filing the present complaint under Section 500, IPC). Darshan Singh, petitioner, had filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1214- SBA of 2000 in this Court and vide order dated 30.11.2000, in the presence of counsel for both the sides, this Court had condoned the delay and had ordered the issuance of "notice", meaning thereby that the Appeal was admitted to regular hearing. A copy of the order dated 30.11.2000, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, was produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted before me that after the admission of the Appeal against the acquittal by this Court, the very basis for filing the criminal complaint under Section 500, IPC had vanished. It was further submitted that even otherwise, prima facie, a case under Section 500 IPC, was not made out, merely because the criminal complaint, filed by petitioner No. 2, Gurdial Singh, was dismissed by the trial Court and that Darshan Singh and Chanchal Singh were the witnesses for Gurdial Singh in the said criminal complaint. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by this Court, in the cases reported as Ravinder Kumar v. Wazir Chand, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 92 and Shalini Mehta @ Shalu v. Dr JL Mehta, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 589. 8. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by this Court, in the cases reported as Ravinder Kumar v. Wazir Chand, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 92 and Shalini Mehta @ Shalu v. Dr JL Mehta, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 589. 8. As referred to above, petitioner No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint against the present complainant, Avtar Singh under Sections 323/325/34, IPC, and petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 namely Darshan Singh and Chanchal Singh were the witnesses of the complainant in the said complaint. A copy of the said complaint is Annexure P1. However, in the said complaint, Avtar Singh was acquitted by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment dated 20.1.2000, copy Annexure P2. Thereafter, Avtar Singh filed the present complaint under Sections 500/34, IPC, alleging therein that since Darshan Singh, accused, had filed a criminal complaint against him and Gurdial Singh and Chanchal Singh, accused, had appeared as witnesses, they had committed the offence under Section 500, IPC, because the reputation of Avtar Singh had been lowered in the eyes of others. 9. In 1992(1) RCR 92 (supra), it was held that the allegations made by the accused were not defamatory, although it may amount to making false accusations and the prosecution, launched on the basis of those allegations, may be described to be malicious, giving rise to a civil wrong, for which the complainant could seek his remedy in the civil Court, but this will not make out an offence under Section 500, IPC. Similarly, in 1993(3) RCR 589 (supra), it was held by this Court that where the wife had lodged an FIR making the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry and the allegations were found to be frivolous and malafide by the Court, still the wife was not guilty of the offence of defamation, as she had made the allegations in good faith and her action was protected under Section 499, IPC, exception VIII of the IPC. 10. In the present case, as referred to above, petitioner No. 2 had made the complaint under Sections 323/325/34, IPC, against the present complainant, Avtar Singh, and in the said complaint, the present petitioners No. 1 and 3 had appeared as Witnesses. 10. In the present case, as referred to above, petitioner No. 2 had made the complaint under Sections 323/325/34, IPC, against the present complainant, Avtar Singh, and in the said complaint, the present petitioners No. 1 and 3 had appeared as Witnesses. If after considering the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused, Avtar Singh (who is the complainant in the present complaint), it could not be said that the present petitioners had committed the offence of defamation, merely because the learned Magistrate had not found Avtar Singh guilty in the said criminal complaint. On the other hand, in my opinion, the case of the present petitioners would be fully covered by exception VIII, given in Section 499, IPC. In my opinion, the criminal complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, in the present case, would amount to abuse of process of Court. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the criminal complaint, the impugned order dated 3.5.2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, summoning the petitioners as accused and all subsequent proceedings, in this regard, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.