JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 15 dated 19.7.2004 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) could be said to have been committed by the petitioners. In fact, petitioners had moved a complaint to the Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi qua irregularities committed by the respondent. Hence, the case of the petitioners was covered under exception eight to Section 499 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the petitioners with a view to defame the respondent had moved the complaint (Annexure P-6) before the Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi. 4. Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-1), in brief, is that complainant was working for the welfare of the village being the President of Development Committee of village Malakpur. Petitioners with an intention to cause loss of reputation to the complainant, gave a false application on 7.6.2000 against the complainant to Director, Kandi Area Project, Block Dera Bassi. On inquiry, the allegations levelled in the complaint were found false. 5. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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. (2) 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 Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 6. Annexure P-6 is the complaint moved by the petitioners before Director, Kandi Arrea Project. Annexure P-6 is the complaint moved by the petitioners before Director, Kandi Arrea Project. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioners had stated in the application that, although, respondent was President/Incharge of their village but he was not properly utilizing the grant given by Kandi Area nor had consulted members of the committee and was utilizing everything for his own benefit. 7. Section 499 IPC defines defamation and the same reads as under:- “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs 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.” 8. Punishment qua offence of defamation has been provided under Section 500 IPC. Exception eight to Section 499 IPC reads as under:- “It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. 9. Thus, when any accusation is made against any person having lawful charge over that person, then it would not amount to defamation. 10. Petitioners had apparently moved a complaint before Director, Kandi Area Project in good faith against the respondent. Although, in the complaint, complainant has stated that the inquiry conducted by the Director reveals that the respondent was innocent but no such order has been placed on record by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted that no action was taken on Annexure P-6 by the Director. In the present case, it is evident that petitioners who were residents of the village, in good faith, had moved a representation before the Director to look into the irregularities committed by the respondent. However, the said fact would not amount to defamation as it would be covered under the eighth exception to Section 499 IPC. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No. 15 dated 19.7.2004 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-2), are quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------