JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) has been filed to quash the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, under Section 500 I.P.C. (Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh and others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that applicant was working as a reporter in the Amar Ujala daily newspaper since long and he never published any news which is incorrect, a news item on the basis of press conference has been published in the Meerut edition daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated 15.07.1999 that the Pradhan-Khichchu Singh of Shahpur Goverdhanpur told that Ajeet Singh Tomar @ Bajrangi son of Shri Horam has illegally taken possession of the Gaon Sabha land recorded as pasture land and in this regard complaint has been also made to the District Magistrate as well as to the Commissioner. He also alleged that 510 bighas of land situated at Chakshalapur has been sold out by Ajeet Singh Tomar & his brothers, the dispute in respect to these plots is pending in the Court of Haryana State. He further alleged that the complaint was made to District Magistrate-Gautambudh Nagar to inquire into the matter relating to unauthorised & illegal possession of land, the Gram-pradhan further alleged that culprits have threatened to kill him. Villagers of the village have also complained to NOIDA authority and the NOIDA authority has written a letter to District Magistrate to inquire into the irregularity. Ajeet Singh Tomar in his statement has said that on his complaint government has registered seven cases in respect to forged sale-deed at Police Station-Sector-39. He further states that on abovementioned land of Gaon Sabha, a temple is situated for the last 10 years and he has no concern with the land of Gaon Sabha. Ajeet Singh Tomar in his statement has said that on his complaint government has registered seven cases in respect to forged sale-deed at Police Station-Sector-39. He further states that on abovementioned land of Gaon Sabha, a temple is situated for the last 10 years and he has no concern with the land of Gaon Sabha. Ajeet Singh Tomar also demanded inquiry against the charges labelled by Gram Pradhan, the extract of news item is as follows:- ^^vej mtkyk ^^esjB 15 tqykbZ] 1999 xzke lekt dh tehu dCtk dj csp nsus dk vkjksi vej mtkyk C;wjks uks,Mk] 14 tqykbZA 'kkgiqj xkso/kZu iqj ds iz/kku f[kPpw flga us dbZ xkookysa ds xzke lekt dh Hkwfe csp nsus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA iz/kku us crk;k fd xzke jksfgYykiqj ds [kkrk LkaŒ63 o [kljk uaŒ8 jdck 3 oh?kk 10 fcLok¼xkze lekt½ [kkrk uaŒ 63 [kljk laŒ64 j 14 oh?kk 6 foLok¼flpkabZ foHkkx½] 'kkgiqj xkso/kZuiqj ds [kljk uaŒ194 dh 200 dPpk oh?kk ¼xÅpj Hkwfe½ o xzke pdlykjiqj ds [kljk ua 2@1] 2@4] 2@3] 2@6 o gfjtuks dh 50 oh?kk tehu ij vftr flag rksej mQZ ctjaxh iq= Jh gksjke us voS/k :i ls dCtk dj fy;k gSA blds ckjs es ftykf/kdkjh o esjB e.My ds vk;qDr ls f'kdk;r dh x;h iz/kku ds vuqlkj ;gh ugh vthr o mlds HkkbZ;ks us pdlkyjiqj dh yxHkx 510 oh/kk tehu Hkh csp nh mlus crk;k fd fookn ds dkj.k bl Hkwfe dks ysdj gfj;k.kk dh vnkyr es eqdnek py jgk gSA f[kPpw flg us i=dkjksa dks crk;k fd mlus 28 twu 99 dks ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj] dks i= fy[kdj tehuks ij gks jgs voS/k dCtksa dh tkap djkus dh ekax dh Fkh blls iwoZ 14 ebZ 98 dks Hkh bl flyflys es f'kdk;r dh x;h FkhA xzke iz/kku dk vkjksi gS fd f'kdk;r ds ckn vkjksfi;ksa us mls tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA mldk ;gh dguk gS fd xzkeh.kksa }kjk bu ekeyksa dh f'kdk;r uks,Mk] izkf/kdj.k ds fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh ¼Mh½ ls dh x;h FkhA bl ij fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh us 15 twu 99 dks ftykf/kdkjh dks i= fy[kdj vfu;ferrkvksa dh tkap djus dk vkns'k fn;kA m/kj jksfgYykiqj fuoklh vthr flag rksej us ,d c;ku es nkok fd;k fd mudh f'kdk;r ij 'kklu us Fkkuk lsDVj 39 esa QthZ cSukesa ds lkr eqdnes ntZ fd;s gSA mUgksaus dgk fd xzke lHkk ds ftl Hkwfe ij dCts dh ckr gS ogka ,d eafnj 10 o"kZ ls cuk gqvk gSA mlls mudk dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugh blh rjg flapkbZ foHkkx dh tehu ij lM+d cuh gqbZ gSA vthr flag rksej us xzke iz/kku }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksiks dh tkap djkus dh ekax dh laoknnkrk lEesyu es xzke iz/kku ds vykok nsosUnz 'kekZ] vfuy] veuflag] xqykcflag ¼miiz/kku½ j.kthflag] fo'kuflag] Jhjke o enuyky pढ&#2338A o lquhy dqekj pढढk mifLFkr FksA ¼lR; izfrfyfi½^^ 3. The aforementioned news was published in several newspaper in their own languages. Complainant, opposite party no.2 (Ajeet Singh Tomar), filed a Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on 12.08.1999 impleading 19 persons in which applicant was arrayed as opposite party no.11, in the complaint it was alleged that on the basis of news published in Amar Ujala on 15.7.1999, his image has been tarnished & news published is totally false, as such, accused is liable to be prosecuted under Section 500 I.P.C. 4. A perusal of record reveals that statement of complainant-opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 27.8.1999 and a statement of one Sukhpal alias Kapoor was recorded on 8.9.1999. The learned Magistrate by order dated 12.11.1999 summoned the applicant & 18 others, under Section 500 I.P.C. on the ground that prima-facie the word ‘Bhu Maphia’ ( Hkw&ekfQk ) comes under the definition of defamation. Revision filed against the summoning order dated 12.11.1999 was dismissed by Session Judge by order dated 30.4.2008 as not maintanable. 5. Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Nobody put-inappearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 in spite of the notice issued to him on 14.7.2008. The order dated 14.7.2008 passed by this Court is as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. The applicant, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with the prayer that the proceeding of Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh and other, under Section 500 of IPC, pending in the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that malicious prosecution has been launched against the applicant only for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to serve respondent no.2 through RPAD within a period of a week from today. Respondent no.2 is allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit from the date of service of notice upon him. AGA is also allowed the same time to file counter affidavit on behalf of rest of the respondents. List this case in the week commencing 18thAugust, 2008. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. AGA is also allowed the same time to file counter affidavit on behalf of rest of the respondents. List this case in the week commencing 18thAugust, 2008. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh and other, under Section 500 of IPC, pending in the Court of C.J.M. Gautambudh Nagar shall remain stayed as against the applicant only.” 6. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the news item published in Hindi News Paper Amar Ujala dated 15.7.1999, no offence of defamation is made out against the applicant, therefore, summoning of applicant under Section 500 I.P.C. by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar is abuse of process of law, as such, proceeding of the case is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that applicant has not given any opinion of his own, only statements of Gram Pradhan-Khichchu Singh as well as Ajeet Singh Tomar were published in the newspaper. The counsel further submitted that the applicant has not used the word ‘Bhu Maphia’( Hkw&ekfQk ) in the newspaper but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the combined facts of the news items published by several newspapers in different manner regarding statement of Gram Pradhan & Ajeet Singh Tomar & illegally summoned all the opposite parties including the applicant which is wholly illegal, as such, the proceeding for complaint against the applicant amounts to harassment of accused applicant by initiating unlawful and illegal proceedings. 7. The learned A.G.A. on the other hand supported the impugned summoning order dated 12.11.1999 and contended that learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused-applicant under Section 500 I.P.C. after taking evidence under Section 200 and 202 I.P.C., no interference is called for, prima facie offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out, therefore, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as state and perused records as also authorities & relevant law on the subject. 9. First of all the Court will examine the ingredient of Section 499 and Section 500 I.P.C. which reads as under:- “499. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as state and perused records as also authorities & relevant law on the subject. 9. First of all the Court will examine the ingredient of Section 499 and Section 500 I.P.C. which reads as under:- “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 expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 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. Second Exception.-Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Second Exception.-Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.-Conduct of any person touching any public question.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further Fourth Exception.-Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.-It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.-A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.-Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Sixth Exception.-Merits of public performance.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.-A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Seventh Exception.-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.-It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Seventh Exception.-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.-It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Eighth Exception.-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised 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. Ninth Exception.-Imputation made in good faith by 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 interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good Tenth Exception.-Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.-It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. 500. Punishment for defamation.-Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 10. Offence of defamation, therefore, consist of three essential ingredients, (i) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person. (ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations. (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. 11. (ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations. (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. 11. Thus to bring an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. prosecution has to show (a) that an imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or intended to be read or made by signs or visible representations (b) that the imputation concerned the complainant i.e. the person defamed and the person who has come forward qua complaint alleging that defamation concerned him are identical persons (c) that the accused made or published the incriminating imputation and (d) that the intention behind making and publishing words causing harm to the reputation of such person. 11. Offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C., therefore, is to protect a fundamental right of a person i.e. ‘reputation’ which is part of right to enjoyment of life and liberty and property having an ancient origin as explained by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case reported in (1989) 1 SCC 494 Kiran Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry and another wherein Court reproduced the observations from D.F. Marion Vs. Davis 10 55 ALR 171 as under:- “The right to enjoyment of a private reputation unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.” 12. Now I propose to consider whether news item said to have been published in Hindi daily newspaper “Amar Ujala” taking on the face of it to be correct satisfy the requirement of Section 499 I.P.C. so as to constitute an offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. 13. The published news items contain following heading ^^xzke lekt dh tehu dCtk dj csp nsus dk vkjksi^^ 14. The published news items contain following heading ^^xzke lekt dh tehu dCtk dj csp nsus dk vkjksi^^ 14. The news item further talks of statement of Gram Pradhan Kichchu Singh against Ajeet Singh Tomar @ Bajrangi in the press conference regarding illegal possession over Gaon Sabha state land; second part talks of a cases pending in the Court at the instance of parties in respect to land belonging to Gaon Sabha & State and third part deals with the statement of Ajeet Singh Tomar that he has no concern with the Gaon Sabha & state land. It is material to state that applicant has not given any opinion in his own against Ajeet Singh Tomar alias Bajrangi. Even the word ‘Bhu Maphia’( Hkw&ekfQk ) has not been used in the news item of “Amar Ujala” if the word ‘Bhu Maphia’ ( Hkw&ekfQk ) has been used by any other newspaper then applicant cannot be prosecuted for the same. 15. I go through the complaint also in which there are nine paragraph out of which six paragraph contain news item of different newspaper and paragraph no.7, 8 & 9 there are general allegations collectively against all the news item in different newspaper which would not amount to defamation against the applicant. 16. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying the mind summoned the applicant along with 18 other opposite parties treating all the news item as common although from reading the news item of Amar Ujala dated 15.3.1999 no case of defamation under Section 499 & 500 I.P.C. is made out. 17. Now on the question of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whether interference would be justified or not it will be appropriate to consider the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in reported in AIR 1960 S.C. 866 , R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent abuse of process in Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. State of Punjab wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent abuse of process in Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceeding instituted against accused persons must be tried in accordance with procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C. and this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage but an order of summoning is not an interlocutory order since it compels that accused person to come to the Court and face trial and his valuable right of freedom to some extant are affected, hence in such cases if it can be shown that there is legal bar against institution or continuance of proceedings, Court would interfere. For example, absence of requisite sanction could be one of such matters where Court would be justified for quashing the proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Next category is where allegations contained in F.I.R. or complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety to be correct still do not constitute the offence alleged. While framing its opinion Court will not examine or appreciate any evidence and it will only look to the complaint or F.I.R. to decide whether offence alleged is made out or not. If no offence is made out, Court would be justified to interfere. Then the third category is where allegations made against accused persons may constitute offence alleged but there is either no “legal evidence” adduced in support of case or evidence adduced, clearly and manifestly, fails to prove the charge. In such case also interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified. 18. The case in hand will come under Second category as from reading the complaint in which new item of Hindi daily newspaper dated 15.3.1999 is quoted in paragraph no.2 of the complaint, no offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out, hence proceedings initiated by Magistrate in the case in hand is patently illegal and amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, to secure ends of justice interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified and called for. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case reported in 2020 (113)ACC 904, D. Devaraja Vs. Therefore, to secure ends of justice interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified and called for. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case reported in 2020 (113)ACC 904, D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain has discussed the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. & found that the interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding is justified, the paragraph no.77 of the said judgment is as follows:- “It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of Court.” 20. In view of the discussion made above, the application is allowed. The proceeding of the Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, under Section 500 I.P.C. (Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh & Others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar against the applicant only is quashed. It is made clear that by this order the proceedings against remaining accused has not been quashed. There is no order as to costs.