JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 26.09.2015, as also the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1782 of 2015, Kunwar Pranav Singh ‘Champion' vs Smt. Nupur Singh, under Section 500 IPC, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Summoning order under Section 500 IPC is under challenge in present C-482 petition. Applicant has been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, vide order dated 26.09.2015. 3. Applicant has been summoned to face the trial on the basis of following paper report published in the ‘The Times of India', New Delhi / Dehradun Edition on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 (copy Annexure 7 to the petition): “A relative of Congress MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh “champion' has accused him of conspiracy and attempting to take possession of a hotel which she claimed was under her ownership. The MLA from Khanpur, meanwhile, termed the allegation “baseless" and accused Nupur Singh of dragging his name into a “family issue" to gain sympathy. After getting a complaint in the matter, IG (Garhwal) Sanjay Gunjyal on Tuesday asked Haridwar SSP Sweety Agarwal to conduct a probe and submit a report to him in the next four days. Nupur, who is from Roorkee, told reporters that the MLA, in connivance with her three sisters-in-law, Shalini Singh, Sunaina Singh and Shivani Singh had repeatedly made efforts to take possession of her hotel. She added that the hotel was in the name of her husband Dhruv Singh and that after his death in 2012, she became the sole owner of the property. It was further alleged that she was being threatened by “people close to the MLA". Maintaining that her requests to the administration and police department had fallen on deaf ears, she said that a few days ago some supporters of the MLA had entered the hotel and forced her out of its premises." 4. The allegations and counter-allegations as per newspaper's report are as follows: Allegations of Nupur Singh, distant relative of Congress MLA Kumwar Pranav Singh - Nupur claims that the MLA is trying to take possession of a hotel which is under her possession. The allegations and counter-allegations as per newspaper's report are as follows: Allegations of Nupur Singh, distant relative of Congress MLA Kumwar Pranav Singh - Nupur claims that the MLA is trying to take possession of a hotel which is under her possession. She alleged that he is conspiring with her three sisters-in-law to grab the property, which after her husband's death, belongs to her. Nupur has claimed that people close to the MLA have threatened her and also forced her to leave from the hotel on one occasion. Counter-allegations of Kunwar Pranav Singh ‘Champion', Congress MLA from Khanpur, Haridwar - Singh said charges baseless, being made to “tarnish" his image. He claimed after her husband's death, Nupur started selling off properties and when her sisters-in-law intervened, she “dragged my name into the controversy". Singh alleged she is “maliciously trying to sell off all properties so that no other family member gets a share". 5. Being aggrieved with such publication, complainant-respondent Kunwar Pranav Singh filed a criminal complaint case (copy Annexure 12 to the petition) against the applicant Smt. Nupur Singh in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 6. This Court does not think it necessary to reproduce the whole complaint. Suffice will it be to say that on the basis of the aforesaid news report, as also other news reports published in other newspapers, as per the allegations, the complainant felt belittled and his reputation was tarnished in the estimation of others in the society. The complainant-respondent, therefore, had to convene a press conference to rebut the allegations levelled by the accused-applicant. A notice was served on behalf of the complainant-respondent to contradict the allegations published in the newspaper, but the notice was got returned by the accused-applicant deliberately. In a nutshell, it was submitted that the reputation of the complainant-respondent has been tarnished in the society at large by such statement of the accused-applicant through newspaper. 7. Complainant-respondent got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Said statement has been enclosed as Annexure 13 to the petition. 8. The essentials of the complaint were substantiated in the statement of complainant-respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 9. The statements of Sunil Kumar Walia, Dr. 7. Complainant-respondent got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Said statement has been enclosed as Annexure 13 to the petition. 8. The essentials of the complaint were substantiated in the statement of complainant-respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 9. The statements of Sunil Kumar Walia, Dr. Navneet Sharma and Subhash Verma were recorded by the police of Police Station, Kotwali Roorkee, under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Investigation report was submitted by the police of police station, Kotwali, after recording the statements of these witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 10. Besides that, various documents were filed by the complainant-respondent in the trial court to substantiate the allegations against the applicant in support of Section 499 IPC, the punishment of which is prescribed in Section 500 IPC. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, laid against the applicant. Prima facie, offence punishable under Section 500 IPC is made out against the applicant on the basis of complaint, statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., as recorded by the police, and documents filed in support thereof. 11. When the foundation of criminal offence is laid, the law is clear on the point that the accused-applicant should face trial. Asking the applicant to face the trial doesn't mean that the accused has been convicted. She is simply being asked to go to the trial court and place her case there to secure her discharge / acquittal, in accordance with law, at an appropriate stage. There is sufficient ground for proceeding as contemplated in sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Code. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1 , has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the un-controverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 13. There appears to be no illegality in the order under challenge. No interference is called for in the same at this stage, as would also be evident from the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 . Para 28 of the said ruling is reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held." 14. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held." 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition (CRL) no. 947 of 2015, Nupur Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 20.06.2017, to show that protection of life and liberty was granted to the applicant. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed a judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application no. 495 of 2001 (old no. 4009/87), Ghananand Joshi vs Sri Charanjit Sharma, decided on 26.09.2006, to emphasise that the criminal complaint case should be quashed. The facts of present case are at variance with the case of Ghananand Joshi. The First Exception to Section 499, provides that 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. The Ninth Exception of the same Section further provides that 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 interests of the parson making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. 16. From the documents brought on record, it cannot be inferred, at this stage, that the imputations levelled against the complainant-respondent on his character are true or are made for the public good, in good faith. This is the reason that Ghananand Joshi's decision (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. 17. Another decision of Sanjay Veer Singh Sisodia vs State of Uttarakhand and another, decided by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) no. 760 of 2017, vide order dated 12.06.2017, is placed to buttress such argument. Sisodia's decision is based on Ghananand Joshi's decision. In Sisodia's case (supra), the allegation was that in some paragraph of his written statement, the accused-applicant used defamatory language against the complainant. Application (C-482) no. 760 of 2017, vide order dated 12.06.2017, is placed to buttress such argument. Sisodia's decision is based on Ghananand Joshi's decision. In Sisodia's case (supra), the allegation was that in some paragraph of his written statement, the accused-applicant used defamatory language against the complainant. It may be noted here that, in the instant case, the allegations were not levelled in any written statement or in any pleadings, but were got published by or on behalf of the applicant in a National Daily, having wide circulation, which, according to the complainant-respondent, has tarnished his image in the estimation of the society. 18. The Court was again taken through the contents of the criminal complaint case. From a bare perusal of criminal complaint case, it is apparent that foundation of criminal offence is laid against the applicant in the instant case. Criminal proceedings pending against her, therefore, should not be quashed. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. 19. It is also the settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. The applicant, in the instant case, is unable to pass those tests. 20. No interference is, therefore, called for in the order directing the accused-applicant to face the trial in a criminal complaint case under Section 500 IPC. 21. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted to the applicant to place all the factual pleas before the trial court for securing her discharge / acquittal, at an appropriate stage.