Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482, Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed for quashing the complaint dated February 8, 1993 (Annexure P2) and the summoning order dated July 24, 1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City (Annexure P3). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent, who was Sarpanch of village Fatehpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the Kariana shop, which was constructed on the Panchayat land. The petitioner did not vacate the same, as a result of which there were inimical relations between the petitioner and the respondent. As the respondent-complainant tried to dispossess the petitioner from the shop, a complaint was filed under Sections 323, 427 and 506, Indian Penal Code, by the accused-petitioner against the complainant-respondent on January 29, 1991, in which various allegations were levelled against the present complainant- respondent. 3. As a counter-blast to the complaint filed by the accused-petitioner, the respondent also filed a complaint on February 8, 1993 under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, wherein it was alleged that the accused-petitioner had levelled false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory allegations against the complainant-respondent. It was also alleged that the petitioner had defamed the complainant by filing a false and frivolous complaint against him and that the accused has lowered his image in the estimation of various persons on account of the false and defamatory allegations. 4. The above-narrated allegations were levelled by way of a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala on February 8, 1993, upon which the Magistrate vide order dated July 24, 1993 summoned the petitioner under Section 500, I.P.C. 5. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his complaint dated January 29, 191 were pending in the Court of Law and even if the same are published, the same do not amount to defamation. He has relied upon fourth and fifth exception to Section 499, Indian Penal Code, and has contended that the averments made before a Court of Law in a complaint even if found untrue ultimately, would not tantamount to defamation. Exceptions fourth and fifth to Section 499, Indian Penal Code, are reproduced below :- "499. Defamation. - xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Fourth Exception. Exceptions fourth and fifth to Section 499, Indian Penal Code, are reproduced below :- "499. Defamation. - xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Fourth Exception. - Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts. - It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of Court of Justice or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation. - A Justice of Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception. - Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. - It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further." 6. In my considered opinion, no complaint can be filed against a person even if he has levelled false allegations in a complaint filed by him. The competent court is fully empowered to deal with certain situations if it comes to the conclusion that the allegations are scandalous or defamatory and appropriate orders can be passed. 7. The second argument of Mr. Dinarpur is that the complaint was filed as far back as on February 8, 1993 and nine years have elapsed since the filing of the complaint and no proceedings have taken place in pursuance to the issuance of the summoning order. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Common Cause, a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India, 1996(2) Recent Criminal Reports 419, to contend that in offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years and the trial is pending for more than two years, then the Criminal Courts should discharge or acquit the accused and the close such cases. 8. In the present case the petitioner is sought to the tried under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence, in which the maximum punishment of two years is prescribed. 8. In the present case the petitioner is sought to the tried under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence, in which the maximum punishment of two years is prescribed. The mere pendency of the case for such a long period amounts to an undue hardship to an accused. It has been seen that most of the time whenever the cases are pending for long period of time, the motives are oblique. The sword of damocles cannot be allowed to hang on the head of an accused for all times to come. Wherever there is an inordinate delay in the start of a trial, then the Courts should ensure that the accused is discharged and the complaint is quashed. 9. In view of the above, I quash the complaint dated February 8, 1993 (Annexure P2), and the summoning order dated July 24, 1993 (Annexure P3), being an abuse of the process of Court. All proceedings taken in pursuance to the filing of the complaint are also quashed.