Judgment :- By this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Revision No. 51/2009, whereby the complaint was restored and learned trial Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law in the matter of complaint. 2. Facts in brief are that a social worker, by name, Sk.Farid Sk.Suleman, aged about 75 years R/o Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli had instituted a complaint against the present applicant Dipak Mallaji Atram. According to complaint, the accused in collusion with one Babu Hakim, Secretary of Van Vaibhav Shikshan Mandal, without verifying the truth and authenticity of the information, made a false and vexatious complaint to the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik accusing the complainant with wild and baseless allegations, using derogatory statements against the complainant in a document addressed to the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik depicting the complainant as a soul motivated, against the Secretary of the Trust alleging that complainant is in hand in glove with revenue officials, with intent to lower down the image of the complainant in the society. According to the complainant all people in the society started looking at the complainant as a man of corrupt nature and loose value as a result of allegations made against him maliciously by the accused. The complainant in protest, sent a notice through his counsel dated 24.8.2007 to the accused which though duly served upon the accused, the accused had not shown any remorse nor replied the same by tendering an apology as called for. On the other hand, the accused had got the fact of complaint published in the newspaper. Under these circumstances, placing reliance upon documentary evidence, such as, paper publications dated 19.7.2007; 23.7.2007 and 28.7.2007 as also copy of the enquiry report dated 5.6.2007; copy of hand bill dated 19.8.2000; copy of notice dated 2324. 8.2007 prayed that the accused be tried for the offence of defamation punishable under section 500 IPC. Under these circumstances, placing reliance upon documentary evidence, such as, paper publications dated 19.7.2007; 23.7.2007 and 28.7.2007 as also copy of the enquiry report dated 5.6.2007; copy of hand bill dated 19.8.2000; copy of notice dated 2324. 8.2007 prayed that the accused be tried for the offence of defamation punishable under section 500 IPC. Verification statement of the complainant was also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Aheri, in which grievance made by the complainant regarding illegal acts on the part of one Babu Hakim who was the Seretary of Vanvaibhav Shikshan Sanstha as also the publication made against the complainant alleged him as “................................................................” and alleging further that he is a landgrabber in respect of the land belonging to three widows. According to complainant the accused got the news published in daily 'Lokmat' in its issue dated 23.7.2007 in connivance with Mr Babu Hakim in respect of which notice was addressed to the accused. But he had neither replied the same nor expressed any remorse. Under these circumstances, the complaint was instituted against the present applicant. Learned Judicial Magistrate F..C., Aheri who recorded verification statement of the complainant chose to dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 24.11.2008 in Summary Criminal Case No.4/2008. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that although news is published by daily 'Lokmat' the complainant had not chosen to file a complaint against authorities of daily 'Lokmat'. Thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Aheri decided not to issue process against the accused and dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C., 3. The said order dated 24.11.2008 dismissing the complaint JMFC Aheri was challenged by complainant in Criminal Revision Application No. 51/2008 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli who by the impugned judgment and order allowed the Revision and restored the complaint to the file and directed the learned JMFC to proceed further in the matter accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Thus, this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted by referring to Section 499 of the IPC that the accused could not have been prosecuted on account of exception to section 499 in respect of statement/imputation made in good faith. Thus, this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted by referring to Section 499 of the IPC that the accused could not have been prosecuted on account of exception to section 499 in respect of statement/imputation made in good faith. It is also contended that the applicant is a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from Gadchiroli constituency and a social worker par excellence, who is helping the downtrodden, wretchedly poor and marginalized people and guide the oppressed people. It is further contended that the allegations made by the complainant were baseless, imaginary and therefore, farfetched, that too without sufficient grounds to make out a case for defamation punishable u/s 499 IPC. According to learned counsel for applicant the JMFC Aheri rightly observed that allegations against the accused were within the eighth exception to section 499 IPC. It is also contended that the complainant had not chosen to prosecute the authorities of daily 'Lokmat' for alleged publication against the complainant. Thus, according to the applicant, the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli has to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent complainant submitted that the contentions on behalf of the applicant are baseless, devoid of substance and are based on speculative foundations. He submitted that when a private complaint is made making serious accusations against the accused punishable u/ss. 499 and 500 IPC under sworn statement in respect of which verification statement of the complaint was also recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable probability of conviction at the conclusion of trial. The question of defence as to whether the imputations were made in good faith or bona fide are required to be examined on the basis of evidence which may be led at the trial. The trial Magistrate had power to indict additional accused if so felt under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. But the trial must be allowed to go on as directed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. The trial Magistrate had power to indict additional accused if so felt under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. But the trial must be allowed to go on as directed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. Reference is made to ruling in M N Damani vs. S K Sinha and others reported in AIR 2001SC 2037 wherein in an identical case, the Apex Court held that assuming that the imputations made could be covered by exception 9 of section 499 IPC, several questions still remain to be examined – whether such imputations were made in good faith, in what circumstances, with what intention etc. ….. All these can be examined on the basis of evidence led at the trial which was to be conducted and for that the trial must go on and held that quashing of the complaint by the Karnataka High Court was not proper. 6. To counter these submissions, learned counsel for the applicant made reference to the ruling in Vivek Goenka vs. Y.R.Patil : ( 2000) 9 SCC 87 wherein the Apex Court in para no.4 observed thus;: However, we do not think it necessary to retain accused nos. 2 and 3 in the array of the accused as their connection with the publication is too remote even on the averments made in the complaint. Hence, we order them to be deleted from the party array.” 7. I have perused the ruling cited in Vivek Goenka's case ( supra). It appears that the names of accused nos. 2 and 3 in that case were directed to be deleted because of too remote connection with the publication. However, the trial as against other accused was not disturbed. Therefore, the ratio of Vivek Gornka's case would not be of any help to the case of the applicant. Reference is then made to the ruling in Sanatan Sanstha vs. State of Goa and another : 2007 All MR (Cri) 1827 in order to submit that in a complaint of aid and abetment of the defamation when complainant had failed to spell out the accused from which inference of abetment could be gathered, it was held that process could not have been issued against the accused for offence punishable under section 500 IPC read with 34 IPC. It appears that this Court had considered that the first and foremost of the offence of defamation is making or publication of the defamatory statement and in the facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of prima facie proof of such necessary ingredient it was held that process could not have been issued. Reference is also made to Rajendra Pande vs. Uttram and antoher: AIR 1999 SC 1028 . Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that in that case also the order of issuance of process was quashed on the ground that no case for defamation was made out in the facts and circumstances of that case since the complainant himself was found guilty in departmental enquiry pursuant to the complaint made by the accused. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Apex Court it was a fit case for quashing the issuance of process and the proceeding itself. The learned Advocate for the applicant then made reference to Krishna Sadan Ghosh vs. Govind Prasad Ghosh : 1985 Cri.L.J. 1121 in order to submit that in the absence of material before the Magistrate to issue process it is gross abuse of the process of the Court if the accused is made to stand his trial and in such a case, inherent powers can be used for to quash the proceedings before the Magistrate. Reference is also made to ruling in Sopan Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra : 2008 All MR( Cri.) 1651. In that case, an anonymous vulgar letter was sent to higher authority describing the employee nurse as a a prostitute. The Court held that that letter was not meant for circulation to others and the higher authority to which the letter was addressed did not depose that it has lowered the image of the nurse because of such a letter. In the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the offence of defamation was not proved. 8. I have perused the rulings cited on behalf of the applicant and in my opinion each criminal case will have to be understood in the facts and circumstances mentioned in respect of such case so as to arrive at just and proper conclusion, when a private complaint is filed by which serious accusations have been made with reference to documentary evidence listed in the complaint itself. Furthermore, the verification statement with details of the complaint has been recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, it was duty of the learned trial Magistrate to apply his mind to the averments made in the complaint; the documentary evidence relied upon to appreciate the prima facie nature of the documentary evidence listed and the contents of verification statement made before the court by the complainant, whether benefit of exception can be made available to the accused or not, is a question which is required to be examined on the basis of evidence led at the trial. In such case, it would be premature to say that the benefit of exception is available to the accused at the pretrial stage. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had no justification to dismiss the complaint in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court applied his mind to the contents of the complaint as also the verification statements made in details in support of the complaint and documents listed therein. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the well-reasoned judgment and conclusion based thereupon, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli. The inherent powers available under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can not be used so as to scuttle the 9prosecution at its threshold despite prima facie evidence furnished in support of the complaint to proceed ahead in the case. That being so, the Application has to fail. It is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aheri on 3rd May,2011 at 11.00 a.m, who shall proceed further according to law. Application is dismissed. R & P be sent back forthwith.