JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed by Dr. Swaran Singh for quashing the complaint fated 17.8.1996 filed by respondent, Jaswant Singh, under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code and pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh bearing Criminal Complaint No. 222 of 21.8.1996 (Annexure P-1) and further for quashing order dated 17.3.1999 (Annexure P-5) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, in the aforesaid complaint whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint and was ordered to be summoned. 2. Jaswant Singh filed a complaint against Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari and Shri Raj Sadosh, a local Journalist, who claimed himself to be a press correspondent of the Punjab Kesari Group of Newspaper, for preparing a false press report and the same was published and printed by Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari in the daily Punjab Kesari published from Jalandhar on 3.8.1996. The news item, which appeared in the Punjab Kesari, reads as under :- "ASSURANCE OF PROTECTION TO THOSE WHO MADE LOSS OF CRORES OF RUPEES TO SPINFED. Abohar, 2 August (Raj Sadosh), Previous month after acute rumour of economic and moral bungling, Chief Minister Shri Harcharan Singh Brar transferred President, Managing Director and Additional Managing Director of Spinfed. Out of which Additional Managing Director Sh. Jaswant Singh, has been continuing his charge after ending three weeks. Sh. Jaswant Singh, sent to Spinfed after being involved in various disputes at Jalandhar is President of State Civil Services (PCS). Present Inka Government had transferred him thrice but he has not relinquished his charge. Reliable sources say that N.S. Kang, the new Managing Director of Spinfed has given an assurance of protection/safety to Sh. Jaswant Singh who had not paid attention to the explanation of the then Managing Director in May, 1996. A few months ago, Sales Manager Sh. Satish Suppal was placed under suspension for the alleged bungling for the sale of cotton thread. Inquiry of the matter was handed over to Sh. D.S. Sandhu, General Manager (Purchase) and without waiting for his report, new Managing Director has re-instated Sh. Suppal. In this matter, no need was felt to take into confidence even the Director of Division. Satish Suppal was placed under suspension for the alleged bungling for the sale of cotton thread. Inquiry of the matter was handed over to Sh. D.S. Sandhu, General Manager (Purchase) and without waiting for his report, new Managing Director has re-instated Sh. Suppal. In this matter, no need was felt to take into confidence even the Director of Division. People interested in Spinfed say that a few interested instances are also linked with Spinfed office, being run in old Markfed building in Sector 17, Chandigarh. Co-operative Spinning Mills Employees Union has issued 5 eye opening episode, one of them, Senior Officer busy in meetings with a woman officer after 5 Oclock is a special rumour. Even it has been said that the bills of lighter moments spent in Hotels are also paid by the Spinfed. It was deemed more comfortable to deceive Spinfed in the name of export of cotton and cotton thread. This responsibility was performed by Addl. Managing Director Sh. Jaswant Singh, with the active co-operation of Marketing and Export Manager Smt. Ajit Baveja. Families dealing in export trade earned a lot by purchasing cotton thread from Spinfed. In the early stage, there was no complaint regarding quality but later on lacs of rupees were siphoned off by making false complaints, in the name of degradation in quality as rebate. It is evident that the documents that the Addl. Managing Director had impressed the F.C., Cooperation by saying that in the previous year 25 to 30 percent inferior cotton was purchased. Hence, strict rules were framed in case of purchasing. After publicising the same sub-standard cotton worth crore of rupees was purchased. It is said that during the year 1993-94, the Addl. Managing Director sacrificed the interests of Spinfed for giving undue advantage of Ahmedabad based thread seller. Godowns were taken on rent at Delhi, Ludhiana and Chandigarh without taking permission of Managing Director. Godown at Chandigarh was taken on rent at about ten thousand per month. It is said that the godowns were taken on rent to facilitate the thread sellers of Mumbai and Delhi but the profit was advanced only to the Ahmedabad based firm purchasing goods amounting to Rs. 200 lacs. It is also alleged that Spinfed sent the goods directly to retail customers by its own sources to help this firm in saving sale tax and manipulation of Sales tax. 200 lacs. It is also alleged that Spinfed sent the goods directly to retail customers by its own sources to help this firm in saving sale tax and manipulation of Sales tax. The amount recovered by Spinfed did not include freight, unloading, loading expenditure, amount of insurance, rent of godown from different co-operative Mills at the State to Chandigarh based godown. Spinfed also paid the expenses incurred in sending the goods to the customer of Ahmedabad based firm. Water, electricity, stationery and telephone expenses were separate to it. A complaint by a transport company was made to the then Cooperative Minister Shri Sajjan Kumar Jakhar that the officers of Spinfed are demanding heavy bribe in lieu of giving contract. Sh. Jakhar had issued orders for enquiry but the report has not been submitted till today. Spinfed suffered a loss of Rs. 40 lacs due to purchase of sub- standard Nurma Cotton from Abohar. Shri Jakhar ordered for enquiry against the Executive Officer, Shri S.K. Sood. The Enquiry Officer Shri S.D. Bhatti (Addl. Registrar) held Shri Sood guilty of irregularities of Rs. 852 lacs but the matter was disposed of by accepting the resignation of Shri Sood by influential persons of Spinfed. The same happened in the case of another Administrative Director Shri N.D. Mehta. Shri Mehta was placed under suspension for the allegation for purchasing sub-standard ringframe for cooperative Mills situated at Abohar but this officer was also exonerated by accepting his resignation. The Managing Director in the year called for explanation of the Additional Managing Director in regard to the irregularity pointed out by the accounts personnel of Spinfed. (1) Bungling to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs concerning cotton made threads from Goindwal to Mumbai. (2) Suffering because of demurrage to the tune of Rs. 8.5 lacs due to adopting of wrong procedure in the export of cotton thread from Bhatinda to Hongkong. (3) Unauthorised exemption of Rs. 376 lacs to the firm of Taiwan. (4) Unauthorised payment of Rs. 2 lacs to the Mumbai clearing agent. (5) Paid Rs. 83 thousands against unjustified claim of clearing agent. (6) Remission of Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs to the Ahmedabad based firm. (7) One lac unnecessary rent of godown. (3) Unauthorised exemption of Rs. 376 lacs to the firm of Taiwan. (4) Unauthorised payment of Rs. 2 lacs to the Mumbai clearing agent. (5) Paid Rs. 83 thousands against unjustified claim of clearing agent. (6) Remission of Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs to the Ahmedabad based firm. (7) One lac unnecessary rent of godown. Shri R.K. Gupta, Executive Officer of Cooperative Spinning Mill located at Tapa was placed under suspension for the charges to misuse of official vehicles and to have Rs. 44,000/- as advance amount in his pocket. On 27th September, 1994 the Vigilance Department instituted a case against Shri Gupta at Sangrur for purchasing of sub-standard 73 cotton bales. According to order of the Financial Commissioner the case of enquiry against Shri Gupta was given to the Additional Managing Director on Ist June, 1995. Jaswant Singh visited Tapa and brought with him the sample of cotton for checking. Neither the samples, nor the enquiry report has been submitted till now. The misuse, of vehicles in Spinfed is so high that a Gypsy is sent for Kharar for taking only two litre milk daily. On June 13, 1996, Additional Managing Director had entered in the Log-book that alongwith Satish Sappal, Purchase Manager, he went on official tour for purchasing cotton to Karanpur (Rajasthan). In fact, no purchase there being made in those days. According to log-book, he reached there at 8.00 p.m. and left for Chandigarh at 5.45 AM. A rumour was there that what variety of cotton to be purchased at night. Then the entries were struck off. In reality the family of Jaswant Singh went to see his relatives in his official vehicle. The vehicle covered 574 km. The vehicles driver has also given affidavit about these irregularities. However, Spinted has not exported even one kg. cotton thread for two years but ten thousand monthly pay and so many facilities are being provided to a Lady Officer as an Export Manager. Spinfed had paid a telephone bill of Rs. 20700/- for his resident phone and paid Rs. 1,53,749/- for official phone. A bill of Rs. 2,34,184/- official phone and a bill or Rs. 1,05,912/- residential phone has also been paid for Additional Managing Director. Spinfed had paid a telephone bill of Rs. 20700/- for his resident phone and paid Rs. 1,53,749/- for official phone. A bill of Rs. 2,34,184/- official phone and a bill or Rs. 1,05,912/- residential phone has also been paid for Additional Managing Director. The details of phone bill issued by Chandigarh Telephone Exchange from 15.11.95 to 16.1.96 for two months shows that 141 calls which were done by the Additional Managing Director in these calls Karanpur and Japan calls are also including. It appears that most of the calls are family calls. The Cooperative Spinning Mills Workers Union has lost their faith in Punjab Government. Due to political crises, the bureaucracy have completely taken over the control of the Administration. Now, therefore, demand is being made that scandals should be handed over to C.B.I." 3. It was further averred that the news item contained imputations directly concerning respondent (complainant), intending to harm him and both the accused, namely, Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari and Shri Raj Sadosh, a local Journalist, knew and had reason to believe that such imputations which they had printed and published in the newspaper were false and would certainly harm his reputation and would lower his moral and intellectual character. It was also averred that the said news item was published maliciously without making any proper enquiry and they did not act with due care and caution. Therefore, the complaint was filed by Jaswant Singh only against Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari and Shri Raj Sadosh, a local Journalist, and not against the petitioner, Dr. Swaran Singh. It was simply mentioned in Para No. 3 of the complaint that Vijay Kumar had been meeting Dr. Swaran Singh, who had been instigating him to publish some material against Jaswant Singh so as to tarnish his image as Swaran Singh was having ill will against him. 4. In order to prove the allegations, respondent (complainant) examined 13 witnesses. 5. On 19.4.1993, the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, passed the order, Annexure P-3, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "2. The complainant has completed his preliminary evidence. 3. I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant. 4. I have perused the news-item in issue dated 3.8.1996 of Punjab Kesri which is alleged to be defamatory of the complainant. The complainant has completed his preliminary evidence. 3. I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant. 4. I have perused the news-item in issue dated 3.8.1996 of Punjab Kesri which is alleged to be defamatory of the complainant. Specific allegations have been made against the complainant in the said news-item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of the public funds in the purchase/procurement of cotton and export of yarn etc. In order to prove that the above said allegations are false, it was incumbent upon the complainant to lead cogent evidence as to the above said specific allegations against him. However, the complainant has failed to lead any specific evidence regarding the above said allegations. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that some evidence pertaining to the above said allegations made against the complainant is brought on the record. 5. Accordingly, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court hereby directs that a notice be issued to the Managing Director of the Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing and Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Chandigarh directing him to produce the files pertaining to the matter as indicated above as to the period during which the complainant remained posted in the said organisation on 5.7.1997. Announced. Sd/- Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh." 6. Thus, according to this order, it was observed by the learned Magistrate that specific allegations had been made against the complainant in the said news item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of the public funds in the purchase/procurement of cotton and export of yarn etc. In order to prove that the above said allegations were false, it was incumbent upon respondent (complainant) to lead cogent evidence as to disprove above said specific allegations against him. However, respondent had failed to lead any specific evidence regarding the above said allegations. Therefore, learned Magistrate in his order dated 19.4.1997 had observed that the complainant had failed to lead any specific evidence rebutting the allegations which had been made against him in the news item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of public funds in the purchase/procurement of cotton and export of yarn etc. Therefore, learned Magistrate in his order dated 19.4.1997 had observed that the complainant had failed to lead any specific evidence rebutting the allegations which had been made against him in the news item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of public funds in the purchase/procurement of cotton and export of yarn etc. Therefore, in view of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court directed that a notice be issued to the Managing Director of Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing and Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Chandigarh, to produce the files pertaining to the matter as stated above. 7. After the passing of this order, respondent examined CW-14 Harinder Pal Singh, Sr. Assistant, IAS Branch, and CW-15 Kuldeep Singh, Assistant, SPINFED, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. CW-14 stated that he had brought the original annual confidential reports of respondent and a copy of the resume of the said confidential reports is Exhibit CW14/A. He also stated that photostat copy of the report of Shri Rajan Kashyap, Financial Commissioner, Coop., in respect of the complaint regarding working of SPINFED containing Pages 1 to 39 is Exhibit CW14/B. CW-15 Kuldeep Singh stated that he had been working as Assistant in Establishment Branch of the SPINFED and maintained the records of the explanation and action, if any taken thereof. He further stated that the explanations, which were sought from respondent Jaswant Singh, were considered by the authorities and the same were filed and no explanation was outstanding. Thus, after order dated 19.4.1997 was passed by the learned Magistrate, in which it was observed that respondent had failed to lead any specific evidence about rebutting abovesaid allegations, no evidence worth the name had been led. 8. After recording evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 17.3.1999, Annexure P-5, ordered the summoning of Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari and Shri Raj Sadosh, a local Journalist, under Sections 49/500 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. It was also ordered that Dr. Swaran Singh, petitioner, who had not been arrayed as accused be arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint and he was also ordered to be summoned as the learned Judicial Magistrate had prima facie formed opinion that Dr. It was also ordered that Dr. Swaran Singh, petitioner, who had not been arrayed as accused be arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint and he was also ordered to be summoned as the learned Judicial Magistrate had prima facie formed opinion that Dr. Swaran Singh, the Managing Director of SPINFED, had acted in connivance with Raj Sadosh and Vijay Kumar and got the news item published in Punjab Kesari, Ajit, The Tribune and Hindustan Times, intending to harm the reputation of respondent in the eyes of the general public and his near and dear ones. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, Annexure P-5, Dr. Swaran Singh has filed the present Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing the order, Annexure P-5 as well as the complaint, Annexure P-1. However, Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari, respondent No. 2 and Shri Raj Sadosh, Correspondent, respondent No. 3 were ordered to be deleted vide Courts order dated 17.1.2001 as their presence was not required for the purpose of deciding the Criminal Misc. Petition. 10. I have heard Shri P.S. Hundal, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Joginder Singh Toor, counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the file. 11. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate, on 19.4.1997, vide order Annexure P-3, had observed that specific allegations had been made against the respondent, Jaswant Singh, in the news item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of the public funds in the purchase/procurement of cotton and export of yarn etc. but the evidence led by him was not sufficient and it was incumbent upon him to lead cogent evidence regarding rebuttal of the abovesaid specific allegations against him. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had observed that the respondent (complainant) had failed to lead any specific evidence rebutting the allegations, which had been made against him in the news item pertaining to his role in the embezzlement of public funds. Consequently, in view of the powers vested in the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court had directed the issuance of a notice to the Managing Director of the Spinning Mill Federation to produce the files pertaining to the matter. Consequently, in view of the powers vested in the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court had directed the issuance of a notice to the Managing Director of the Spinning Mill Federation to produce the files pertaining to the matter. After the said order, two witnesses were examined but those witnesses have not improved the case of the complainant in any manner as they only produced the resume of the confidential reports of the respondent or the complaints against him, which, after obtaining explanation, were filed. Hence, the learned Magistrate, vide Annexure P-5 dated 17.3.1999, had passed a contradictory order i.e. completely contradictory to the order dated 19.4.1997, Annexure P-3. One fails to understand as to how prima-facie case was found against Raj Sadosh, local Journalist and Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari and much less the petition to summon them under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code. 12. There is another strange fact. The learned Magistrate had used his extra ordinary powers. The petitioner, Dr. Swaran Singh, had not been cited as an accused, meaning thereby that the respondent had not filed any complaint against Dr. Swaran Singh. However, the Court suo-motu ordered that he be arrayed as accused No. 3 and be also summoned alongwith two other accused as he had connived with them to harm the reputation of Jaswant Singh, respondent. 13. Section 199(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- "199. Prosecution for defamation. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence." 14. Thus, according to it, the Court is not competent to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code relates to the offences under Sections 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code. In view of the bar created under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was not competent to summon the petitioner as an accused under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code suo-motu, without being a complaint filed against him. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code relates to the offences under Sections 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code. In view of the bar created under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was not competent to summon the petitioner as an accused under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code suo-motu, without being a complaint filed against him. Since, Jaswant Singh, respondent, was not aggrieved against the petitioner, so, he did not array petitioner as an accused, in the criminal complaint, Annexure P-1. 15. There is another aspect of the matter. Even after the preliminary evidence was recorded by the trial Court, the respondent (complainant) did not make an application for summoning the petitioner as an accused/respondent under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code Hence, the learned Magistrate was not competent to summon him as an accused without the complaint of the respondent, Jaswant Singh. It is true that Section 2(d) defines "complaint" as under :- "2. Definitions - In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) to (c) xx xx xx xx (d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation. - A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complainant; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 16. According to the said definition of "complaint", if the allegations are made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to taking action under the Code, then it is said to be a complaint. It is true that in the present case the respondent had made a complaint and had made certain allegations against the petitioner also i.e. regarding strained relations or that the petitioner was having ill will or malafide intention against him but such allegations had not been made by the respondent with a view to take action under this Code. It is true that in the present case the respondent had made a complaint and had made certain allegations against the petitioner also i.e. regarding strained relations or that the petitioner was having ill will or malafide intention against him but such allegations had not been made by the respondent with a view to take action under this Code. It has been observed by the Sikkim High Court in Dadhiram Sharma v. Tikaram Bhandari, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1188 that for a prosecution for an offence of defamation under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code, a complaint made by some person aggrieved is a sine qua non under the mandatory provisions of Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines, "defamation" as under :- "Defamation. - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, 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." 17. Thus, according to the definition of "Defamation" if a person by words either spoken or intended to be read, 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 his reputation, then he is said to defame such person. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner has spoken any words or had written anything or by signs or visible representations or had published any imputation concerning the respondent intending to harm his reputation. Whatever allegations had been made, the same had been made by Raj Sadosh, Journalist and Vijay Kumar, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Punjab Kesari. So, prima-facie, no case is made out under Sections 499/501 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Thus, the learned Magistrate, by summoning the petitioner, has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality, which has vitiated the impugned order, Annexure P-5. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and the Court. Therefore, the Criminal Misc. Petition is accepted and the complaint, Annexure P-1, and the impugned order, Annexure P-5, and the subsequent proceedings flowing in pursuance thereof, qua the petitioner are quashed. Petition allowed.