ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amersh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 537 of 2006 including the order dated 20.05.2006 passed by Sri Bum Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 500 & 501 of the I.P.C. 3. It has been submitted that no mention has been made in the complaint with respect to the alleged defamatory article which has led the complainant to file the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioner had never alleged anything against the opposite party no. 2 and even if the allegations are taken to be true in view of the exception of Section 499 of I.P.C. and in view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 has several criminal antecedents, no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate under Sections 500 & 501 of I.P.C. He also submits that in such circumstances, therefore, entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer made and has stated that in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran', specific statement of the petitioner has been inserted in the news items where imputations have been cast upon the opposite party no. 2 with respect to his criminal activities. It has been submitted that considering the said fact, cognizance has been taken and there is no cause to interfere in either the criminal proceeding or in the order taking cognizance. 5. It appears that in the complaint petition, a mere mention has been made about the news item published on 04.04.2006 in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. Since the newspaper item was not available in the record, the Lower Court Record were called for in which the news item is available, from which it appears that certain insinuations were made by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 with respect to his criminal activities. In the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner had been given details with respect to the number of criminal cases pending against the opposite party no. 2 with respect to his criminal activities. In the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner had been given details with respect to the number of criminal cases pending against the opposite party no. 2 and also of one case in which he had been convicted. Section 499 of I.P.C. defines the term 'defamation' and the first exception to Section 499 of I.P.C. reads as follows: “499. Defamation.—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. First Exception – Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. – it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact .” 6. The first exception therefore envisages that it would never be a defamation if something is said about a person which is true if it is for the public good. 7. The imputations which have been made by the petitioner seems to be with respect to the illegal activities of the opposite party no. 2. The first exception of Section 499 of I.P.C. therefore reveals that whether the defamation to impute anything which is true concerning to any person is in public good or not is a question of fact. The news item which has been published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' specifically names the petitioner as alleging against the opposite party no. 2 of a man having criminal history. 8. The question whether the petitioner have disclosed the said fact or not and whether such imputation with respect to the allegations made against the opposite party no. 2 is in the public good can only be decided during trial. 9. This Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court while deciding such issue at this stage. 2 is in the public good can only be decided during trial. 9. This Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court while deciding such issue at this stage. Accordingly, there being no error in the impugned order of cognizance to cause interference in the criminal proceeding, I m not inclined to entertain this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 10. Let the lower court records which had been called for be sent back. Application dismissed.