JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (oral) This petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner, who is facing the trial in criminal case No. 871/1999 (new No. 3571/2004), Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs. Onkar Shukla, U/S 500 I.P.C. pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar, has challenged the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge U.S. Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 52/2003, thereby directing the Judicial Magistrate to decide the matter on merit and in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision, set aside the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint and set aside the summoning order dated 10.5.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Shiv Prasad Mishra, was posed as Principal in the Junior High School Mohanpur No.2, Gadarpur, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On 4.1.1999 the petitioner, who was posted as Basic Siksha Adhikari inspected the school and found that the teachers were not imparting the education to the students properly. When certain questions were asked to the students by the petitioner, no satisfactory replies were given by the students. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner being Basic Siksha Adhikari insulted the teachers before the students with the utterance of words that ßbu lcdks lM+d ds pkSjkgs ij [kM+k djds xksyh ekj nsuh pkfg;sAÞ 3. The respondent No.2, Shiv Prasad Mishra thereafter filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate for summoning the petitioner as an accused to face the trial U/S 500 I.P.C. The petitioner was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate to face the trial and on filing the objection against the summoning order the Judicial Magistrate subsequently set aside the summoning order vide judgment and order dated 18.9.2003. 4. The complainant thereafter filed a revision and the Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the Magistrate concerned shall decide the case on merit and in accordance with law. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the revisional court this petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this court U/S 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Pujari, learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the revisional court this petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this court U/S 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Pujari, learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant, although Sri B.S. Parihar and Sri Mohd. Azim have put in appearance in the case on behalf of respondent No.2. 7. In order to resolve the controversy involved in the matter it would be relevant to quote certain paragraphs of complaint which are as under :- 3- ;g fd fujh{k.k ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; eksguiqj uEcj 2 {ks= xnjiqj ftyk m/ke flag uxj igqaps rks vfHk;qDr ds lkFk vU; vf/kdkjh Hkh Fks ftUgsa eqLrxhl ugha tkurk Fkk vkSj u gh mu vf/kdkfj;ksa dk vfHk;qDr }kjk eqLrxhl dks ifjfpr gh djk;k x;k eqLrxhl us vfHk;qDr dks LFkku xzg.k djkus ds i”pkr~ lkeus iM+h csap ij eqLrxhl cSB x;k ftl ij vfHk;qDr us eqLrxhl dks cnreht csgqnk o cnek”k “kCnksa ls lEcksf/kr djrs gq, viekfur fd;k vkSj dgk fd nks vf/kdkjh [kMs+ gSa vkSj rqe cSB x;s gksA 4- ;g fd fo|ky; dk fujh{k.k ds nkSjku tc Nk=ksa ls fujh{k.k ds le; esa dqN iz”u iwNs fdUrq fo|kfFkZ;ksa ls dqN iz”u dk mÙkj lUrks’ktud u feyus ij vfHk;qDr us vkdzksf’kr gksdj fo|ky; ds lc v/;kidksa ls dgk fd bu lcdks lM+d ds pkSjkgs ij [kM+k djds xksyh ekj nsuh pkfg;sA 5- ;g fd vfHk;qDr us eqLrxhl ls cnrehth o pkSjkgs esa [kM+k dj xksyh ekj nsus dk dFku tkucw>dj eqLrxhl dh izfr’Bk dks vk?kkr igqapkus dh fu;r ls dgk gS fd tks fd ,d vijkf/kd d`R; gS vkSj vfHk;qDr }kjk mDr vR;kf/kd ekufld o “kkjhfjd d’V mBkuk iM+k gSA eqLrxhl dks vius Nk=ksa ,oa vfHkHkkodksa ds e/; viekfur gksuk iM+k gSA ftldh {kfr dk vkadyu vkfFkZd :i ls lEHko ugha gS fdUrq fQj Hkh eqLrxhl viuh {kfr ds fy, vfHk;qDr ls eq- 5]00]000@& #i;s dh ekax djrk gSA 8. A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears to me that the utterance of words by the petitioner cannot be said to have imputed any harm to the credit or reputation. It was the natural conduct of the petitioner to express his anguish the way the job was being performed by the teachers towards the students of the school. A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears to me that the utterance of words by the petitioner cannot be said to have imputed any harm to the credit or reputation. It was the natural conduct of the petitioner to express his anguish the way the job was being performed by the teachers towards the students of the school. It is a natural expression to be made by the superior officers. During the course of the inspection the affairs of the school going on were not found satisfactory. It was also natural on the part of the petitioner to express his anguish when the students could not properly reply the questions put by him to them. However, I think that there was no ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner to impute any harm or reputation of the petitioner. 9. The order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Magistrate shows that on the basis of the inspection note put by the Basic Siksha Adhikari there was adverse entries in the character rolls of all the teachers of that school on 16.1.1999 and it appears to me that this complaint is the counter-blast of the adverse entry made by the Officers of the Education Department on the basis of the inspection note made by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly did not have any animus with the teachers of the school who were present at the time of the inspection. All the witnesses produced by the complainant in support of his complainant are the interested witnesses as the adverse entry was also made against them in their character rolls. The complainant did not produce any of the student or the parent of any student present in the school at the time of the inspection who could have stated that in their estimation the reputation or the credit of the petitioner was put to harm. The complainant further appears to be a result of counter-blast on the ground that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation by way of filing the criminal complaint. This demand of the compensation of Rs. The complainant further appears to be a result of counter-blast on the ground that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation by way of filing the criminal complaint. This demand of the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation by way of criminal complaint shows the mental status of complainant/respondent No.2, who has filed this complaint only to gain monetary benefit and it cannot be said that the complainant has infact come to the court in order to bring the actual culprit within the clutches of law. 10. In view of above I come to the conclusion that prima-facie the offence U/S 500 I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner and the complaint filed by the complainant is apparently a result of malafides as well as it is an abuse of process of court. I do not find any reason that the order passed by the learned revisional court should subsist. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate while setting aside the summoning order has passed a reasoned and detailed order, thereby observing that no offence U/S 500 I.P.C. is made out. 11. For the reason stated above the order passed by the revisional court dated 26.10.2004 is set aside and consequently the order 18.9.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case No. 871/1999 (new No. 3571/2004), Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs. Onkar Shukla, U/S 500 I.P.C. pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.