JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih dismissed the criminal revision after finding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.340 of 2014 by which the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner made false imputations concerning the complainant, who is a doctor by profession and is a medical practitioner and also runs a clinic; intending to harm her reputation and knowing and having reason to believe the imputations on the complainant that she has removed one kidney of the petitioner while performing a surgery for removal of uterus of the petitioner, with the intention of selling the said kidney of the petitioner and when the petitioner went to the clinic of the complainant with the report, the complainant abused the petitioner and drove her out by pushing her. 4. On the basis of complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 vide order dated 14.08.2019 and the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih after considering the materials in the record dismissed the same as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The contention of the petitioner made in her report to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih basing upon which an enquiry was setup by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the same was published in the newspaper was true. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The contention of the petitioner made in her report to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih basing upon which an enquiry was setup by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the same was published in the newspaper was true. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioner comes under the 8th exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- Section 499 - Defamation 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. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the accusations of the petitioner are in good faith and was made to a lawful authority with respect to the subject matter of the accusations, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the accusations of the petitioner are in good faith and was made to a lawful authority with respect to the subject matter of the accusations, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petitioner deliberately made imputations in writing concerning the complainant intending to harm her reputation and also knowing and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant by making baseless allegation that the complainant with intention to do the business of selling kidney has removed the left kidney of the petitioner, which is an absurdity, as kidney of a person is not a commodity which can be sold to anyone and in the absence of any material to suggest as to whom the same was sold and further to aggravate the damage to the reputation of the complainant, the petitioner has further made allegations falsely that the petitioner went to the clinic of the complainant and there she was abused and driven out from the clinic without such incident having ever occurred and the same was done intentionally and not in good faith rather with the deliberate knowledge of harming the reputation of the complainant, hence, it is submitted that the imputations made against the complainant by the petitioner having not made in good faith; the allegation do not come under the 8th exception of Section 499 of the India Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in either the order passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih or the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only defence of the petitioner is that she made the accusations in good faith which is controverted by the complainant. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only defence of the petitioner is that she made the accusations in good faith which is controverted by the complainant. The complainant specifically has taken the plea that the accusations against her was not made in good faith rather imputations were made with the knowledge and intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and her clinic. It is a settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthy reported in (2009) 1 SCC 101 . It is also a settled principle of law that for the purpose of bringing any case within the purview of 8th and 9th exceptions appended to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be necessary for the person who pleads the exception to prove it. He has to prove good faith for the purpose of protection of the interest of the person making it or any other person or for the public good, so, it is needless to mention that it is the defence of the petitioner that the imputations were made in good faith; which is a subject matter of trial. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether such allegations were made in good faith or not, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the accusations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety then this same prima facie constitutes the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In view of the discussions made above, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih or the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.340 of 2014 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. Revision No.94 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih or the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.340 of 2014 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 27.01.2020, is vacated. 12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.