Petitioner (accused) Ms. G.K.S. Malik at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Director (News), Radio Kash­mir, Srinagar and respondent (com­plainant) Dr. Javed Rahi was posted as Chief Editor (Gojri), J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages, Jammu (for short the Academy). Petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.02.2010 to the President of the Academy (Hon'ble the Chief Minister) making various asser­tions against the respondent and re­questing for an enquiry against him. Because of this letter, the respondent on 03.04.2010 filed a complaint alleg­ing commission of offence under Sec­tion 500 RPC by the petitioner in the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Elec­tricity), Jammu. He alleged that some of the accusations levelled against him by the petitioner were baseless and defamatory and have damaged and tar­nished his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues, officers and Hon'ble President of the Academy. He identified these accusations in his complaint as: "A vigilance case is pending against the complainant's fraudulent appoint­ment in the Academy and the com­plainant got his appointment by us­ing unfair means and sabotaged the deserving candidate." and "The complainant has reportedly militant links and using government machinery for his personal interests by claiming himself to be a self styled Gujjar Leader." 2. These two accusations figure as items No. 7 and 11 in the letter. 3. Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, recorded initial state­ments of the respondent and one wit­ness produced by him on 23.04.2010 and while finding a prima facie case under section 500 RPC ordered issu­ance of process against the petitioner on 23. 11.2011. 4. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 561- A Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) seeks quashing of the complaint filed against him by the respondent and the order passed by the Id. Magistrate. Grounds urged by her are that she had voiced her grievance against illegal and un­called for interference by the respon­dent in performance of her duties as Director (News), Radio Kashmir, Srinagar to the President of the Acad­emy and that the letter does not reveal anything defamatory against the re­spondent so does not constitute an of­fence under section 500 ,RPC. As re­gards her assertion that the, respondent has secured his appointment by using unfair means, she says in the petition that the same was based on a letter dated 29.05.2006 written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Jammu to the Joint Sec­retary of the Academy. As re­gards her assertion that the, respondent has secured his appointment by using unfair means, she says in the petition that the same was based on a letter dated 29.05.2006 written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Jammu to the Joint Sec­retary of the Academy. She has pro­duced copy of the said letter as Annexure-D to the petition. This fact, accord­ing to her, was much to the knowledge of the respondent and also to the offic­ers of the Academy and the public at large. 5. I have heard Id. counsels for the parties and have gone through the com­plaint, the letter and other material available on record. 6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner by her letter had in good faith brought the misdeeds of the respondent to the knowledge of the head of his institution i.e. President of the Academy, which act of her is ex­empted from offence of defamation un­der Eighth Exception to sec. 499 RPC. Ld. trial Magistrate, urged Id. counsel for the petitioner, has fallen into error by not taking note of this important aspect, which was evident from letter in question and finding a prima facie case against the petitioner. Issuance of the process against the petitioner for commission of the offence of defama­tion, therefore, was abuse of process of the Court and the complaint and pro­ceedings before the Ld. Magistrate call for quashing to undo the wrong. Ld. counsel for the respondent per contra urges that the letter written by the pe­titioner contains false imputations on the reputation of the respondent say­ing that he has secured his appoint­ment in the Academy fraudulently and was having links with the militants, which have damaged and tarnished his reputation in the eyes of his friends, officers and the general public that knows him. 7. High Court under section 561 -A of the Code (sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. High Court under section 561 -A of the Code (sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to seek quashing of any criminal proceedings pending in any Court if it is shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that such proceedings is the abuse of pro­cess of that Court or its quashing is otherwise required to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction of the High Court is vast indeed but it is well settled that this jurisdiction is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and the Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. While invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing of a criminal complaint pend­ing in a Court, the petitioner must show that the uncontroverted allega­tions in the complaint and/or the ma­terial produced in support thereof do not prima facie disclose commission of any offence. Quashing may also be ordered if in a given case prosecution is mani­festly mala fide or expressly barred. Criminal proceedings, however, should not be quashed where allegations prima facie show commission of of­fence and the prosecution could be al­lowed in the interest of justice. Hon"ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has given categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power can be used either to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of jus­tice. The categories given by the Apex Hon’ble Court are: "108…………….. 1. 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 fade 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 S. 156(1) of the Code ex­cept under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code. 3. 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 S. 156(1) of the Code ex­cept under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 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 not 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 cognizance 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. 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceedings is in­stituted) to the institution and continu­ance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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". 8. Writing of letter dated 18.02.2010 by the petitioner to the President of the Academy is not denied. In paragraph 4 (b) of her petition, the petitioner says that in the said letter "the petitioner has voiced her grievances against the illegal and uncalled for interferences by the respondent herein in the offi­cial duties of the petitioner in her ca­pacity as Deputy Director (News) Radio Kashmir, Srinagar." The gravamen of respondent's grievance against the petitioner, however, is the assertions figuring at serial No. 7 of the letter where the petitioner says that the re­spondent has secured his appointment in the Academy by using unfair means and a vigilance case in this regard was pending against him. His further griev­ance is as regards the allegation at serial No. 11 of the letter where she has said that the respondent was having militant links. In his complaint, the respondent has alleged that the accusations leveled by petitioner were baseless and defamatory. He alleged further that besides addressing this letter to the president of the Academy, she also forwarded its copies to Secre­tary of the Academy and also distrib­uted them in all the sections of the Academy, which damaged/tarnished his reputation in the eyes of his col­leagues, officers and the Hon'ble Presi­dent of the Academy. 9. To say and convey in writing to another or others that a person is hav­ing militant links or to say that a Gov­ernment officer has secured his ap­pointment fraudulently and vigilance case in this regard is pending against him is a serious imputation on the reputation of that person and per se defamatory. Publication of such impu­tation makes out a prima facie case pf defamation defined under sec. 499 RPC and punishable under see. 500 RPC. 10. Petitioner's say in the petition is that her assertion as regards vigi­lance enquiry/verification into ap­pointment of the respondent was based on letter dated 29.05.2006 Written by Dy. SP, Vigilance Organization, Jammu to the Joint Secretary, Cultural Academy, Jammu. She has annexed a xerox copy of this letter as Annexure-D to the petition. I have perused Annexure-D which, however, would not show anything to indicate towards the fraudulent appointment of the respon­dent. Petitioner's contention in this regard, therefore, does not seem to be well founded. Petitioner, however, has not tendered any explanation in the petition as regards her assertion about militant links of the respondent. Be­sides, the petitioner has contended that the respondent has filed complaint in question against her as a sequel to a complaint under sees. 501-B and 506 RPC earlier filed by her against him. This contention, however, would hold no water once writing of the letter in question is not denied by her. 11. Viewed thus, neither it can be said that the letter of the petitioner did not contain any defamatory material against the respondent or that the com­plaint filed by the respondent did not make out a prima facie case of defa­mation against the petitioner nor that the issuing of process by the Id. Magis­trate against the petitioner was abuse of the process of the court. 12. Magis­trate against the petitioner was abuse of the process of the court. 12. Important question, however, raised by the Id. counsel for the peti­tioner is that the act of the petitioner was privileged under Eighth Exception to sec. 499 RPC and does not consti­tute offence of defamation punishable under sec. 500 RPC. 13. Ld. counsel for petitioner would project that petitioner's letter dated 18.02.2010 was addressed to the Presi­dent of the Academy who undisputedly has lawful authority over the respon­dent in his capacity as in charge, Gojri Programme/Chief Editor (Gojri) of the Academy so accusation, if any, in the letter was exempt from the rigor of the offence of defamation. In support, Id. counsel relied upon authority of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajinder Kumar Sita Ram Pandey versus Uttam and anr. AIR 1999 SC 1028 . Ld. Counsel urged that the Id. trial Magistrate had failed to take note of this important aspect of the case which was evident from the letter in question, which the complaint for defamation was based upon. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the respondent would urge that under the Eighth Exception like that under Ninth Exception, only the accusations/impu­tations made in good faith are exempt and to avail this defence accused has to establish at trial by leading evidence that the accusation/imputation was made in good faith. The accusations leveled by the petitioner, however, were false, with out any basis and can­not be said to have been leveled in good faith. In support Id. counsel relied upon authority of this Court in Ashok Singh Manhas v Ajay Gandotra, 2011 (3) JKJ 126(HC). 14. Eighth Exception to sec. 499 RPC reads: "Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person-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." AND Ninth Exception reads: "Imputation made in good faith by a person for protection of his or other's interests- it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of an­other provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good." 15. A bare look to Eighth Exception and Ninth Exception would show that they do not provide absolute immunity to liability for offence of defamation under sec. 499 RPC punishable under sec. 500, if all other ingredients of the offence are made out. Immunity under these exceptions is available only when the accusation/imputation is pre­ferred/made in good faith. Under Eighth Exception immunity is available only when the accusation/imputation against a person is preferred in good faith to a person who has authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. Likewise under Ninth Exception immunity is available only when the accusation/ imputation against a person is pre­ferred/made in good faith for the pro­tection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. In both the cases 'Good faith' is the essence. This Court in Ashok Singh Manhas' case supra while dealing with 9th Exception to sec. 499 RPC has observed: "11.... the person, who insists that the imputation made by him falls within the purview of 9th exception to section 499 RPC, has to establish though by preponderance of prob­abilities only, that the statement of im­putation was made in good faith The Magistrate cannot visualize at the outset that the case falls within one or more of the Exceptions and in par­ticular Exception 9th to Section 499 RPC and refuse to take cognizance where the matter otherwise satisfies all the requirements laid down under section 499 RPC. In other words, in case the complaint, statement of com­plainant and of the witnesses exam­ined by the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint, discloses that the accused by words either spo­ken or intended to be read or signs or by visible representation, has made or published an imputation concern­ing complaint, intended to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant, the Magistrate would be justified in tak­ing cognizance and issuance of pro­cess against accused. It is thereafter, as the matter proceeds, the accused may establish that the statement of imputation was made in good faith to protect his interests or interests of any other person(s). 12. It is thereafter, as the matter proceeds, the accused may establish that the statement of imputation was made in good faith to protect his interests or interests of any other person(s). 12. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the burden on the ac­cused is not of the kind placed on the complainant to prove his case but only to be proved by preponderance of probabilities. Whether the petitioner in the present case made the imputa­tion in good faith, cannot be deter­mined by this Court when called upon to exercise inherent powers. The ques­tion in factual in character and it is only the Trial Court that can return a finding on the issue, of course after the parties being evidence on record, whether the imputation was made in good faith and whether the case falls within 9th Exception to Section 499 RPC and that the offence of defama­tion as defined under Section 499 RPC was not proved against the peti­tioner...." 16. The above observation of this court as regards Ninth Exception to sec. 499 RPC would be applicable in the same manner in regard to Eight Excep­tion also as 'good faith' is the essence of both the Exceptions. To take refuge under the protection provided under Eighth Exception, petitioner will have to establish at trial, though by prepon­derance of probabilities, that she had preferred the above two assertions against the respondent in a good faith without any malice and ill will against him. 17. Application of the Eighth Excep­tion involves a point of fact and can not be expected to be visualized by a trial Court at threshold stage of taking cog­nizance of the offence or issuing pro­cess against the accused. Likewise, invoking Eighth Exception in exercise of inherent power of the High Court under sec. 561 of the Code is not pos­sible unless accused is in position to produce some clinching material to satisfy the Court that the accusation/imputation was made by him/her in good faith without any malice or ill will and continuance of prosecution will not be expedient in the interest of justice. Such material is instanced in the au­thority (supra) relied upon by the Id. counsel for the petitioner in this case, which, however does not support his case. 18. In Rajinder Kumar Sita Ram's case ( AIR 1999 SC 1028 ) relied upon by the Id. counsel for the petitioner. 19. Such material is instanced in the au­thority (supra) relied upon by the Id. counsel for the petitioner in this case, which, however does not support his case. 18. In Rajinder Kumar Sita Ram's case ( AIR 1999 SC 1028 ) relied upon by the Id. counsel for the petitioner. 19. Facts were somewhat identical to the case under consideration here but there was a remarkable edge, which was the basis of quashing of the complaint by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complaint for defamation was based upon a complaint lodged by the accused persons to the Treasury Officer, Amaravati allegedly containing false imputation to the effect that the Complainant had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Trea­sury Officer and thereby having com­mitted offence punishable under sec­tion 500 RPC read with 34 IPC. Ld. Ju­dicial Magistrate, Amaravati, after ob­taining report from Treasury Officer under Section 202(1) of the (Central Code), vide his order dated 16.08.1991 issued process against the accused persons. The accused persons chal­lenged the order in revision before the Id. Sessions Judge. Ld. Sessions Judge, being of the view that on the basis of aforesaid inquiry report under section 202(1) the case was one covered under Eighth Exception to sec. 499 RPC, set aside the order of the Magistrate, di­recting issuance of process. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) however, set aside the order of the Ses­sions Judge, taking the view that or­der directing issuance of process be­ing an interlocutory order, Sessions Judge had to jurisdiction under Section 397(Central Code) to interfere with the same. Matter thus, landed up before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Su­preme Court was pleased to consider the matter and took the view: "8........ The report of the Treasury Officer clearly indicates that pursu­ant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental inquiry has been initi­ated and the complainant was found to be guilty. Under such circum­stances the fact that the accused per­sons had made a report to the supe­rior officer of the complainant alleg­ing that he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which is the gravamen of the present complaint and nothing more, would be covered by Exception 8 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code." 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal pro­ceedings pending before the Magis­trate. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal pro­ceedings pending before the Magis­trate. 21. The authority relied upon by the Id. counsel, would not support petitioner's case as it is not possible to hold at this stage that the assertions contained at items Nos. 7 and 11 of her letter were made in good faith. The pe­titioner will have to reserve the ben­efit under Eighth Exception of sec. 499 for future and may prove, though by pre­ponderance of probabilities, at trial that she made these assertions in good faith. 22. For what all said and discussed above, the petition is dismissed as without merit along with connected Cr. MA. 23. Trial Court record be sent down. __________