ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed legality of the order dated 18.01.2016 by which Complaint Case No. 1599 of 2015 has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). 2. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions viz. (i) at the stage of enquiry the Magistrate cannot go into the merits of the case and all that he has to examine is whether a prima-facie case is made out and (ii) complaint petition has been dismissed on the ground that other litigations between the parties are pending, an extraneous ground not to be found in Statute or a judicial decision. 3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.02.2011. The petitioner has stated that after the marriage he became seriously ill but O.P. No. 2, his wife, did not take care of him rather inflicted various acts of torture upon him and finally on 10.04.2011 left for her parents' place. Constrained, he instituted M.T.S. No. 324 of 2011 for divorce. On receiving notice in the divorce case, O.P. No. 2 and his two brothers threatened him on 14.12.2011 and made their intentions clear to implicate him in a false criminal case. He therefore lodged an informatory petition vide Misc. Case No. 50 of 2011 in the Court of S.D.M. Sadar, Ranchi. In the proceeding of M.T.S. No. 324 of 2011, O.P. No. 2 signed a joint compromise petition promising not to commit any mistake in future and therefore he withdrew divorce case. However, attitude of O.P. No. 2 did not change and she continued to harass and humiliate him in various ways, at times she would threaten to commit suicide. She left his company and went to his paternal house at Begusarai and after spending few months there left for her parents' home at Purnea. The petitioner instituted a second divorce case vide M.T.S. No. 204 of 2013 and O.P. No. 2 again started putting pressure and threatening him for withdrawing divorce case. He then filed Informatory Petition No. 360 of 2013 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. One day, O.P. No. 2 forcibly entered into the house which he leased out to D.A.V. Alok Study Centre for five years and created various hindrances on account of which Study Centre was finally closed. He then filed Informatory Petition No. 360 of 2013 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. One day, O.P. No. 2 forcibly entered into the house which he leased out to D.A.V. Alok Study Centre for five years and created various hindrances on account of which Study Centre was finally closed. It is stated that O.P. No. 2 has filed a criminal case on the allegation that she was harassed and tortured in connection to demand of dowry and her complaint has been registered as Argora P.S. Case No. 313 of 2013 under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No. 1599 of 2015 making allegation that his wife would openly declare that her husband has illicit relations with Shanta Kumari who as a matter of fact is a married women with a child. In paragraph nos. 12 to 15 of the complaint petition the petitioner has given details of the offending imputations made by his wife. 5. Paragraph Nos. In paragraph nos. 12 to 15 of the complaint petition the petitioner has given details of the offending imputations made by his wife. 5. Paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 of the complaint are extracted below: 12- ;g fd fnukad 30-08-2014 dks f'kdk;rdrkZ vius eksjkcknh Fkkuk cfj;krq ftyk jkaph fLFkr vkokl esa VhŒohŒ ns[k jgk Fkk rHkh og bZVhoh ij jgs ,d lk{kkRdkj dks ns[kdj HkkSpDdk jg x;k fd xkxhZ dqekjh f'kdk;rdrkZ ij mlds xyr pfj= dk gksus dk [kqysvke vkjksi yxk jgh FkhA ftlls f'kdk;rdrkZ ds eku lEeku dks Bsl igqapk vkSj ckn esa U;wt ds ml va'k ds lhMh dks f'kdk;rdrkZ us gkfly dj fy;kA ftl lhMh dks bl eqdnes ds lquokbZ ds nkSjku ÁLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA mijksDr lk{kkRdkj esa vfHk;qDr }kjk fn, x, lk{kkRdkj dk nks i`"Bksa dk VkbIM dkih bl f'kdk;rokn ds lkFk layXu vuqyXud&4 ds :i esa gSA 13- ;g fd f'kdk;rdrkZ us fnukad 01-09-2014 dks LFkkuh; v[kckj fgUnqLrku nSfud esa Nih [kcj dks ns[kk rks ik;k fd vfHk;qDr us mlds xyr pfj= ds ckjs esa c;ku fn;k gSA mijksDr lekpkj i= dk va'k ,d i`"B esa bl f'kdk;rokn ds lkFk layXu vuqyXud&5 ds :i esa gSA 14- ;g fd iqu% fnukad 13-04-2015 dks vfHk;qDr us lgk;d fo|qr vfHk;ark] gjeq] jkaph dks fn, x, vius vkosnu esa f'kdk;rdrkZ ds pfj= ij xyr vkjksi yxk;k gS ftlls f'kdk;rdrkZ ds Áfr"Bk dks Bsl igqaph gSA vfHk;qDr dk mijksDr nks i`"Bksa dk vkosnu bl f'kdk;rokn ds lkFk layXu vuqyXud&6 ds :i esa gSA 15- ;g fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[k.M] jkaph ds ds'k la[;k MCY;wŒihŒ ¼lhŒ½ uEcj&185@2015 ,oa nwljk dsl fØŒ,eŒihŒ uEcj 1061@2014 esa vfHk;qDr }kjk fn, x, vius 'kiFk i= ij f'kdk;rdrkZ ds pfj=ghu gksus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA mijksDr 'kiFki=ksa ds i`"B la[;k 7 ,oa i`"B la[;k 8 dks Øe'k% bl f'kdk;rokn ds lkFk layXu vuqyXud&7 ds :i esa gSA (English Translation) 12. That, on 30.08.2014, the complainant was watching T.V. in his house at Morhabadi under Bariatu P.S. District-Ranchi and he was surprised to see an interview telecast on E.T.V. Gargi Kumari was openly making allegation about the complainant of being bad character. It hurts dignity of the complainant. Later on the complainant obtained C.D. of that part of news. This C.D. will be produced during hearing of the case. The typed copy of the interview of the accused in two pages is attached with the Complaint Petition as Annexure-IV. 13. It hurts dignity of the complainant. Later on the complainant obtained C.D. of that part of news. This C.D. will be produced during hearing of the case. The typed copy of the interview of the accused in two pages is attached with the Complaint Petition as Annexure-IV. 13. That, the complainant on 01.09.2014 saw the news article published in the local newspaper Hindustan Dainik that the accused has given statement regarding his bad character. The part of the newspaper in one page is attached with this Complaint Petition as Annexure-V. 14. That, again on 13.04.2015, the accused has levelled false allegation about character of the complainant in her application submitted to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Harmu, Ranchi which has caused damage to prestige of the complainant. The two pages application of the accused is attached with this Complaint Petition as Annexure-VI. 15. That, in W.P. (C) No. 185/2015 and Cr.M.P. No. 1061/2014 filed in the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the accused in her affidavit has alleged that the complainant has a bad character. Page No. 7 and 8 of the aforesaid affidavits are attached with this Complaint Petition as Annexure-VII. 6. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if a person by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person. Section 499 carves out ten well defined exceptions under which the imputation made by a person would not amount to defamation. The complaint petition has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. and therefore at this stage the proposed accused cannot take shelter of any of the exceptions under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well-settled that the Magistrate after examination of the complainant and causing enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. can dismiss the complaint if he does not find a prima-facie case to proceed against the proposed accused. 7. A plea has been raised by the learned counsel for O.P No. 2 that no witness was examined by the complainant and mere ipse dixit of a complainant is not sufficient to issue process to the proposed accused. 7. A plea has been raised by the learned counsel for O.P No. 2 that no witness was examined by the complainant and mere ipse dixit of a complainant is not sufficient to issue process to the proposed accused. Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate upon examining the complainant on oath and the witnesses if any “present” can take cognizance of the offence on a complaint. Section 202 Cr.P.C. vests a discretionary power in the Magistrate to call for a police report or cause an enquiry into the matter to satisfy himself about truthfulness of the allegation in the complaint and to see whether there is sufficient material to proceed on the complaint. It is not necessary that the complainant must examine witness in support of the complaint and it would be a matter for the Magistrate which necessarily would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case whether to take cognizance and proceed on the complaint. 8. In Ranjit Singh vs. State of Pepsu (Now Punjab), AIR 1959 SC 843 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “10. Lastly it was urged that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was erroneous in that he did not hold an enquiry as required under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the former of which is expressly mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That contention is equally untenable because under Section 200 proviso (aa) it is not necessary for a Magistrate when a complaint is made by a court to examine the complainant and neither Section 200 nor Section 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against the person complained against.” 9. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to the judgment in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44 and Jiya Ram Marandi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2018) 1 JLJR 422 to buttress his submission that power of the Magistrate is well defined and at this stage the Magistrate cannot look into extraneous materials to make up his mind whether or not to proceed in the matter. 10. In Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “11. 10. In Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to whether, on a reading of the complaint, a prima-facie case has been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. The law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima-facie the truth or falsehood of the, allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.” 11. In the judgment under challenge, the learned Magistrate has referred to various proceedings between the parties and finally come to a conclusion that the materials laid by the complainant were not sufficient to proceed against the proposed accused. No witness was examined by the complainant who would have affirmed his knowledge about the offending imputations. He has not cited even one witness and speaking strictly from the technical point of view offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was not committed because there was no publication. 12. The first imputation as averred in paragraph 12 of the complaint is statement of O.P. No. 2 during an interview telecast by E-TV on 30.08.2014. He has not cited even one witness and speaking strictly from the technical point of view offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was not committed because there was no publication. 12. The first imputation as averred in paragraph 12 of the complaint is statement of O.P. No. 2 during an interview telecast by E-TV on 30.08.2014. The petitioner has stated that on watching the telecast he found that his wife was making open allegation that the character of her husband is bad. The petitioner has stated that he has obtained a copy of the offending statement of his wife on a C.D. which he can produce during the trial. He has filed typed copy of extract of the statement of his wife. In the first place, I need to indicate that a document must be read as a whole and only after looking at whole of the document the real intent of O.P. No. 2 who has made allegation against the petitioner can be inferred. The typed copy of extract of the interview forms part of complaint petition, a copy of which has been produced with this revision petition. This document was not verified by anyone least to say the journalist who took interview of O.P. No. 2. The petitioner is not the person competent to verify correctness and truthfulness of the contents of the document filed by him - he has not even disclosed the source how he could obtain extract of the interview of his wife. He cannot prove on his own that an interview of O.P. No. 2 was telecast. The alleged imputation referred to in paragraph no. 12 is conjecture and cannot be looked into to find a prima-facie case. Even further, a glance at the offending part of the interview would simply indicate that O.P. No. 2 has raised objections to the lady employee entering her bedroom without permission. There is nothing defamatory against the husband and no aspersion was made against him. 13. The second imputation is a newspaper report dated 01.09.2014 a copy of which is available at Page 42 of the revision petition. A news report without arraigning the correspondent of the newspaper as a witness and his statement on oath affirming that O.P. No. 2 made such statements cannot be made basis in a complaint for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A news report without arraigning the correspondent of the newspaper as a witness and his statement on oath affirming that O.P. No. 2 made such statements cannot be made basis in a complaint for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Again, the petitioner is not the person who can say anything about the newspaper report. Similarly, the contents of the application dated 13.04.2015 which according to the petitioner has lowered his prestige in esteem of his peers and was intended to defame him refer to the allegations by his wife which she had been making in various proceedings in the Court. The affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2 in the proceeding of Cr.M.P. No. 1061 of 2014 would also not come within the purview of Section 499. Furthermore, the petitioner has not disclosed in the complaint petition whether after the affidavit filed by his wife in Cr.M.P. No. 1061 of 2014 he moved any application in the Court for proceeding against her. 14. From a reading of the complaint petition, in particular paragraph no. 16, I gather that previously O.P. No. 2 did not cast any aspersion on character of the petitioner but now according to him his wife is hell bent to defame him by openly castigating his character. But in the ultimate analysis by the Court his complaint petition and statement on solemn affirmation do not provide a foundation for proceeding against O.P. No. 2 - only his feelings are not sufficient. 15. The proceedings under chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature and in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has rightly stayed his hands away from returning any opinion on the allegations. The petitioner's own stand in the complaint petition puts the Magistrate on guard not to make such a decision in the matter which may effects the other pending proceedings one way or the other. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has stated that the petitioner has initiated atleast 18 proceedings in different Courts in which O.P. No. 2 has been arrayed as the opposite party. That apart, I find that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the complainant has failed to lay sufficient materials constituting a prima-facie case of defamation so as to proceed against O.P. No. 2. 16. That apart, I find that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the complainant has failed to lay sufficient materials constituting a prima-facie case of defamation so as to proceed against O.P. No. 2. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order dated 18.01.2016 is a cryptic order and therefore the matter needs to be sent back before the Magistrate for a fresh decision. I express my inability to agree with the learned Senior Counsel primarily for the reason that this is not a case for remand and I have myself examined the materials on record and having satisfied that there is no merit in this criminal revision petition would dismiss the same. 17. Criminal Revision No. 442 of 2016 bereft of merits is dismissed. 18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “FAX.” Revision dismissed.