JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. 1. Consequent upon a sting operation carried out by respondent (accused) No. 1, M/s CNN-IBN 7, a TV Channel, alongwith the remaining respondents (accused) wherein the complainant (petitioner), the then Chairman, Himachal Pradesh, State Haj Committee, is said to have received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with further promise of payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- for inclusion of the names of 50 Mohammedans belonging to Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, in the list of Hajis meant for the state of Himachal Pradesh, the latter (complainant) filed a complaint u/s 500 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the former (accused) in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (3), Shimla, H.P. In support of the allegations leveled in the complaint, the complainant led preliminary evidence in which he appeared as his own witness as CW-1, besides examining two other witnesses, namely, CW-2 Shri Adarsh Kumar Sood and CW-3 Shri Mansur Alam Sidiqui. In addition thereto, he also brought on record the CD, Ex. CW-1/A, containing the telecast version of the sting operation, its transcript in Hindi, Ex. CW-1/B, legal notice, Ex. CW-1/C, and reply there to, Ex. CW-1/D. 2. On consideration of the matter, the learned trial Magistrate while relying upon the defence of "truth" setup by the accused in the reply to the notice served upon by the complainant declined to issue process against the accused and proceeded to dismiss the complaint. Being aggrieved he is in revision before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. A combined and harmonious reading of the impugned order dated 09.05.2008 would go to show that after noticing facts of the case in paras 1 to 3, the learned Magistrate though has stated in the opening lines of para 4 that he had "also perused the case file with minute care", yet has based his order solely on the ground that since in reply to the notice issued by the complainant, the accused have setup the defence of "truth" publication whereof was for "public good", the telecast in question did not amount to defamation. There is no reference in the order" about the oral and documentary evidence led by the complainant in preliminary evidence, except reply to the notice, Ex. CW-1/D. 5. There is no reference in the order" about the oral and documentary evidence led by the complainant in preliminary evidence, except reply to the notice, Ex. CW-1/D. 5. The question with regard to summoning of the accused or otherwise is entirely dependant upon the preliminary evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations setup in the complaint and not on the defence raised by the accused in reply to the legal notice served upon them by the complainant. Thus, to my mind, the impugned order dated 09.05.2008 suffers from this infirmity and as such cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.05.2008 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned trial Court with a direction to re-consider the entire matter in the light of the preliminary evidence led on behalf of the complainant and thereafter proceed further in the matter from that stage onwards in accordance with law. 7. The observations made hereinabove in this judgment are limited for disposal of the present revision petition and the same shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on merits of the case. 8. The complainant, through Counsel, is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18th May, 2012. The requisitioned record be sent back so as to reach well before the date fixed. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending Cr. MP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.