JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that initially, complainant Bhupinder Kaur wife of Amrik Singh Sunnar-respondent (for brevity “the complainant”) filed a complaint dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure P1) against Tarsem Lal son of Arjan Dass and others, including the present petitioner, under sections 148, 500 and 120-B read with section 149 IPC. 2. Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate summoned the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure P2) (11¾ years ago). 3. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner-accused straightway jumped to file the present petition on 3.8.2006, to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) & summoning order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 4. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that while issuing notice of motion, the personal presence of the petitioner was exempted and he was permitted to appear before the trial Court through his counsel, vide order dated 4.8.2006 by this Court. Thereafter, this petition was repeatedly adjourned for hearing for one reason or the other and petitioner is enjoying the fruits of stay since then. Ultimately, it was adjourned to 3.12.2009. On that day, since none appeared on behalf of petitioner, so, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.). 5. However, in the wake of application filed by the petitioner, the petition was restored to its original number, vide order dated 21.12.2009 and it was listed for arguments on 4.2.2010. Instead of reproducing each interim order and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the petition was again got repeatedly adjourned. 6. As strange as it may look, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of some of Advocates to delay the disposal of cases, in which, the stay was granted at the initial stage, has been tremendously increasing day-by-day, perhaps, under the speculative notion and wrong impression that the High Court is helpless & debarred or unable to decide the matter in their absence. The instant case pending since 2006 at motion stage is burning example of such category of cases. 7. The instant case pending since 2006 at motion stage is burning example of such category of cases. 7. As again, no body appeared on behalf of petitioner on 22.8.2012 and 12.9.2012, therefore, the following order was passed by this Court on 12.9.2012:- “Although no cogent ground for adjournment of this old petition at motion stage is made out, however, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to counsel for the parties to argue the matter. Again adjourned to 11.10.2012 for arguments, at the written request circulated on behalf of the petitioner.” 8. Today again, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner blatantly refused to argue the matter. Under these compelling circumstances, I have no option, but to decide this six years old petition, pending at motion stage, after perusing the record in this relevant connection. 9. Having carefully perused the record and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 10. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations in the complaint (Annexure P1) that the petitioner along with his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with a common object to damage the image and reputation of the complainant in the eyes of general public and maliciously published the news by the petitioner in his newspaper “Daily Ajit”. The petitioner was stated to have full knowledge that the imputation concerning reputation of complainant, was false and it was published only in order to lower down her image in the eyes of general public. Not only that, the Magistrate has considered the evidence in the right perspective before summoning the petitioner-accused and observed as under (paras 4 to 6) :- “4. The complainant while appearing as AW1 deposed as per his case. The complainant deposed that she is a resident of village Arian and is teacher in Govt. Primary School, Arian. On 3.5.2000, she suddenly came to know that accused No.1 to 6 moved a complaint against her to torn her image before S.D.M. Nakodar. The same was marked to B.E.P.O. Nakodar for enquiry. The accused No.7 Pawan Kumar Tinu with the criminal conspiracy of all the accused and with common object got published an imputation in the Daily Ajit with the connivance of accused No.8 Barjinder Singh Hamdard. The same was marked to B.E.P.O. Nakodar for enquiry. The accused No.7 Pawan Kumar Tinu with the criminal conspiracy of all the accused and with common object got published an imputation in the Daily Ajit with the connivance of accused No.8 Barjinder Singh Hamdard. The enquiry was held by Smt.Joginder Kaur who find that the allegations leveled by the accused No.1 to 6 are false, frivolous and leveled only to harm the reputation of the complainant. The accused No.7 Pawan Kumar tinu connivance with accused No.1 to 6 made complaint against the complainant, she used to Bachittar minor belongs to Scheduled caste in her home for domestic work. But on enquiry, Smt.Joginder Kaur B.E.P.O. Found that these allegations are false and leveled only to lower the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of general public. The accused No.1 to 8 published this news in Daily Ajit despite knowing the fact that enquiry officer gave his findings in her favour. The news was published on 9.5.2000 and enquiry officer gave her report on 3.5.2000. The complainant further deposed that due to this false news, her reputation was lowered in the eyes of general public. The complainant further proved on record enquiry report Mark A1. Her statement was corroborated by all other witnesses on all material particulars. 5. I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the complainant as well as preliminary evidence brought on record very carefully. Section 500 IPC laid down that three ingredients are essential: 1. Making or publishing any imputation on concerning any person, 2. Such imputation must have been made by (a) Words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations, 3. Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. From the perusal preliminary evidence brought on record, Joginder Kaur, B.E.P.O. PW3 deposed that she received application from SDM Nakodar against Bhupinder Kaur teacher to enquire about the allegations that whether Bhupinder Kaur getting any illegal benefit from the children belonging to scheduled caste community. She found that the allegations leveled against the complainant Bhupinder Kaur are false and submitted her report Ex.A3. She further found that the allegations made against the complainant were due to party friction in the village. 6. She found that the allegations leveled against the complainant Bhupinder Kaur are false and submitted her report Ex.A3. She further found that the allegations made against the complainant were due to party friction in the village. 6. From the preliminary evidence and documents produced on record, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. There are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Let all the (8) eight accused be summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under sections 500/148/149/120-B IPC on filing of PF and copy of complaint within 15 days for 26.3.2001.” 11. No ground/reasons, muchless cogent, to impugn the impugned summoning order at this initial stage of trial, are pleaded/taken in the present petition. Moreover, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 942] : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:- (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 12. Not only that, again the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Jeffery J. Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 2972] : 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 183, having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:- “16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.” 13. Therefore, the Bench mark set out and essential ingredients for quashing the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) & summoning order (Annexure P2) at this initial stage of trial are totally lacking in this case. The ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 14. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has prima facie considered the preliminary evidence, as contemplated u/s 204 Cr.PC in the right perspective, summoned the accused, including the petitioner, vide impugned summoning order (Annexure P2) and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such well-articulated impugned summoning order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such illegality or legal infirmity has been projected in the petition by the petitioner, so, the impugned summoning order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial of the main complaint case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. 16. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial of the complaint (Annexure P1), as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.