The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations made in a complaint before the court, if made in good faith for the protection of the person making them, may not constitute defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the court clarified the limitations under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

V.K. Jadhav, J.

Heard finally with the consent of the parties, at admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Ahmednagar in STC No.1641/2012 dated 28.9.2012 whereby the learned Magistrate issued the process against the present applicant for having committed an offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment and order dated 30.6.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.187/2013 confirming the said order passed by the Magistrate, the petitioner-original accused preferred this criminal application.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application, are as follows :

The applicant had filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar bearing STCC No.34/2009 against respondent No.2 and two others for having committed an offence punishable under section 323, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Ahmednagar by the Judgment and order dated 21.12.2011 acquitted all the accused including present respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2, has, therefore, filed private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar against the present applicant for having committed an offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal code. It has alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner has filed said case bearing STC No.34/2009 with false allegations and could not substantiate said allegations before the Court and thus thereby defamed the present respondent no.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Court No.5, Ahmednagar by order dated 28.9.2012 issued process against present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the present applicant approached the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar, by filing criminal revision application No.187/2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by its impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2015 in Criminal Revision No.187/2013 dismissed the revision petition and thereby confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate. Hence, this Criminal application.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant is entitled to an absolute privilege in respect of the allegations made in the complaint before the Court as well as the statements made before the court during the course of the trial of the said case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternate, submits that, the allegations made in the said complaint filed by the petitioner were in good faith and for the protection of her interest and in view of Exception 9 to Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no charge for defamation could lie against her. Learned counsel submits that, the present applicant lodged complaint in the police station in respect of the incident dated 14.11.2008 in Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar on 15.11.2008. Since no cognizance was taken by the police, the petitioner had approached the Court and on 19.12.2008 filed private complaint before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, bearing STC No.34 of 2009. Even though, both the dates are considered as the date of filing of the complaint as 19.12.2008 or the date of institution of the prosecution, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the applicant is barred by the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submits that, complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. Learned Magistrate has committed grave mistake in taking cognizance of such time barred complaint and further issuing process against the accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned counsel for the ap