ORDER : 1. Under challenge herein is an order/judgment dated 09.01.2023, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Pali, in Criminal Revision Petition No.09/2022 (09/2022), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. He had challenged the order/judgment dated 31.01.2022 passed by the passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction in Case (Private Complaint) No.43/2019, vide which the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 500 IPC against the respondents was dismissed. 2. Briefly, relevant facts of the case are that petitioner, Surendra Kumar, claims that on 12.11.2016, he defeated respondent No.3 in the presidential election. He was elected President of Shree Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha, Maryada Mahotsav Samiti, Bidasar, District Churu. Following this, the respondents No.2 & 3 got angry and published an advertisement in a Society magazine and aired news on a TV channel stating that the petitioner was no longer a member of the Terapanthi Society. This defamed the petitioner in the society. Consequently, he lodged a complaint against the respondents under Section 500 of the IPC. 2.1 After the complaint was filed, several witnesses were examined in court, including Ajeet Kumar Vaid, Harakchand Bafna, Bhopal Singh, Bhanwarlal, Kiranraj, Sureshchandra, Bhupendra Singh, and Surendra Kumar himself (the complainant). After examining the statements of witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate at Marwar Junction dismissed the petitioner’s complaint on 31.01.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition seeking to quash the order, which too did not yield any result, as it was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the primary focus of the court at the stage of summoning is to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without delving into the nuances of evidence or the likelihood of conviction. Testimonies from eight witnesses-demonstrated the pervasive impact of the defamatory statements on the petitioner’s personal and social life. 4.1. Moreover, the backdrop of these events includes the petitioner’s successful election to the Tera Panth Samaj Sangh, where he received a considerable majority of 126 votes, overshadowing the mere 20 votes garnered by the candidate supported by Respondent No. 2. This electoral victory likely fuelled Respondent No. 2’s animosity and the resultant petitioner’s ostracization. 5. 4.1. Moreover, the backdrop of these events includes the petitioner’s successful election to the Tera Panth Samaj Sangh, where he received a considerable majority of 126 votes, overshadowing the mere 20 votes garnered by the candidate supported by Respondent No. 2. This electoral victory likely fuelled Respondent No. 2’s animosity and the resultant petitioner’s ostracization. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the initial complaint, the petitioner attempted to resolve the disputes by tendering apologies several times and ultimately resigned from his position as President. In April 2018, a new election was held, in which the petitioner chose not to participate. 5.1. In the month of May 2019, the petitioner filed a complaint against 32 individuals, including Respondents No.2 and 3, for alleged offences under Sections 500 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This complaint was forwarded to the concerned police station for investigation. On 02.06.2019 the police registered FIR No. 111/2019 at the Siryari Police Station and initiated an inquiry into the matter. During this investigation, the mother of the complainant/petitioner provided a statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against the petitioner. 5.2. While the investigation was ongoing, the petitioner filed another complaint on 19.08.2019 against Respondents No.2 and 3, concerning the same incident and facts. This complaint was registered as Complaint No.25/19 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate in Marwar Junction, District Pali. Meanwhile, the investigating officer submitted a negative final report on 27.09.2019 regarding FIR No. 111/2019. Subsequently, on 09.12.2019, the petitioner filed a third complaint based on the same incident, which was registered as Complaint No. 43/2019 in the same court. 5.3. On the same day, the petitioner did not pursue the second complaint any further. Instead, on 14.12.2019, he withdrew the second complaint during a Lok Adalat session, doing so without any liberty, which led to its dismissal. It was in this background that on 31.01.2022, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the third complaint, by passing a detailed order. No interference of this Court is, therefore warranted. 6. It was in this background that on 31.01.2022, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the third complaint, by passing a detailed order. No interference of this Court is, therefore warranted. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, it is borne out that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is inter alia premised on the reasoning that the alleged defamatory statement pertained to Surendra Surana's separation from the Jain Shwetambar Terapanth Sect, made in a religious context, and did not show contempt or harm to his reputation. The court concluded that the publication was aimed to inform the community of Surana's status. It thus found no evidence of social ostracism or allegations against him. The Acharya expressed goodwill toward Surana, indicating no intent to harm his reputation. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. 7. The Revisional Court upheld the order of the learned trial court based on its reasoning and rejected the revision petition. 8. In my opinion, the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court have given sound and sufficient reasons for the conclusions drawn and view taken. The same are consistent with record and applicable law. There seems no illegality in law or procedural irregularity fatal to the impugned orders. I am inclined to agree with the reasons already recorded and consistent view taken by the learned trial Court and the learned Revisional Court. 9. In the premise, no grounds to interfere. 10. Dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.